The finely tuned universe leads to a deduction that higher consciousness exists

My opponent proposes that the existence of a higher consciousness can be deduced from the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe. It is my goal to show that no such deduction is warranted. In the first round my opponent does a good job of listing the various ways in which the universe appears to be finely tuned for human life. In fact, the link he provides states that there are 26 different constants that would make life as we know it impossible if any one of them were just slightly different. During this debate I will grant that these physical constants do indeed have the appearance of being fine tuned. I will even go so far as to suggest that for the remainder of the debate we will assume that fine tuning did occur (this may not be true(1) but for this debate I am willing to concede this much to Pro) A higher consciousness is indeed one of several proposed ideas to explain the fine tuning of the universe. But it stands out as the only one that invokes the supernatural. All the other proposed explanations of the fine tuning are completely naturalistic, and are merely extensions of accepted theories of physics. Pro writes that, "Modern science tells us that in some cases, energy has arranged it self into progressively more complex systems over time… the most complex known to us as human life." I agree with this statement. All of the evidence shows a universe progressing through time from a state of utter chaos to ever increasing levels of complexity, until after 13 billion years something as smart as a human exists. But I don't understand how Pro can deduce from this a higher consciousness, appearing *before* even the simplest state of the universe, in order to fine tune the laws of the universe. This "deduction" seems to be diametrically opposed to the evidence of increasing complexity because any consciousness that is higher than the consciousness of a human must necessarily be more complex than a human. How is the existence of this complexity explained? By an even higher consciousness? How would we explain the great higher consciousness? By a great, great one? I am afraid we have an infinite regression on our hands. Granted, the naturalistic alternatives also lead to infinities, but there are infinities and then there are infinities. The various multiverse proposals, suggest an infinite number of universes over an infinite amount of time, or even the evolution of universes to the state of one capable of supporting life, but they do not contradict the copious amount of evidence of complexity increasing over time . The idea of a "higher consciousness" on the other hand proposes greater complexity than any we know of, occurring even before the formation of the laws of the universe. If we take this to its logical conclusion, we are forced to not only accept infinite time scales, we are forced to accept infinite complexity over infinite time scales, progressing backwards in time as one higher consciousness is invoked to explain the next higher consciousness. Each one more complex than the next. We end up with infinity times infinity, which leaves us worse off than before we were ignorant of the apparent fine tuning of the physical constants. This ends my argument for round one, but I would like to comment on some of my opponents statements in his opening round. 1."Attempts at explaining the fine tuning of nature have led to complicated systems" Yes, physics is complicated. The deeper our understanding goes the more complicated it becomes. All of the hypothesis that are capable of explaining the fine tuning of the universe are one level more complicated than Einstein's theory of relativity, and how many people really understand that one? The alternative to complicated systems is called magic. "Let there be light, and there was light" 2."Because science cannot prove or disprove an intelligent creator, this also can be seen as another way the universe is fine tuned" I do not see how this can be seen as a way the universe is "fine tuned", unless the intelligent creator intentionally created us to be unable to prove or disprove his/her/it's existence. This would suggest a malevolent creator that wants us to remain ignorant of our origins. 3. "One interesting outcome of these mathematical adventures is scientists say there is potential for other life forms to exist in parallel with our own dimension. This is what religion has been saying for thousands of years!" This is not what religions have been saying for thousands of years. The "potential life forms" suggested by these scientific ideas have the commonality of being *biological* life forms that evolved from decidedly un-complex chemicals. Religions have been saying for thousands of years that "higher beings" have existed *eternally* with no evolutionary origin. 4. " consider the whole, not just the parts… Any of the parts... can be easily brushed aside… when considered in totality, a logical conclusion is there is some kind of consciousness behind the structures of nature. If *any* of the parts can be brushed aside, what happens to the whole when *all* the parts are brushed aside? Scientist have not been able to explain the fine tuning of the universe, but proposing a magic genie as an explanation is no explanation. If we ever discover why the universe is conducive to human life I am confident that the explanation will be a naturalistic one. Sometimes we just have to accept not knowing. That is part of the beauty of life. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... Disputes on the existence of fine tuning (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... If you would like to learn more about the naturalistic possibilities (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...