Is it likely that God exists.

When it comes to the fine tuning argument it all comes down to probability. The universe is too unlikely to exist the way it is therefore someone (because apparently it must be someONE instead of someTHING) must have fine tuned it. However if I was to rename the fine tuning argument I would call it the "wave a lot of numbers, too unlikely, therefore God" argument, which is a form of a God of the Gaps argument by the way. Because of the way how the fine tuning argument is presented it makes it seem like as if we are objectively important. "It is all fine tuned for us". And because of this it can be easily used against theists. If we were to play by your logic the laws of physics are fine tuned for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy correct? There are 2 possible answers you could give either " yes" or "no". If your answer is no then you are contradicting yourself. Why? Because you give a biased answer which makes your argument less credible. Saying no means stating that if the laws of physics were any different we wouldn't exist therefore the laws of physics were fine tuned for us, but at the same time state if the laws of physics were any different then the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't exist therefore the laws of physics were NOT fine tuned for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. Obvious contradiction. How do you know the laws of physics were fine tuned only for us? Emotions? However if you answer "yes" then this argument can be used on any object in the entire universe. You can then say that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of the black hole that is probably in the centre of the milky way. We can say that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of VY Canis Majoris, the largest star that has been discovered. And suddenly we become less important. Was the universe really fine tuned for us? Or maybe it was fine tuned for something else. Or maybe it wasn't fine tuned at all? I love maths. It's my favourite subject along with physics. The reason why I bring up maths is because the fine tuning argument relies on it. In maths there are 2 types of probability- theoretical and experimental. The probability that my opponent talks about is theoretical probability. Theoretical probability is when we calculate the results we should get. My opponent never mentions and never will mention experimental probability which is the actual result. Why? Because he doesn't know the experimental probability. Let me simplify the example before I go any further. If I flipped a coin 100 times you'd expect to throw heads 50 times and tails 50 times. This is theoretical probability. However if I flipped the coin and recorded my result then that would be then I would get experimental probability. My opponent presents theoretical probability but we know that it doesn't necessary agree with reality. There is no way of knowing that it does. We can't know how likely it is for the universe to support life because we have no data. In order to know it we would have to know both the amount of universes that support life and the amount of all of universes. Guess what? We don't know the value for any of these. We only have 1 set of results. We can only observe 1 universe and that is the universe that we live in. Just like flipping a coin knowing 1 result doesn't tell us what the other 99 results are, similarly we can't know how many universes support life if we can only observe our own universe. As to flipping the coin 100 times you are unlikely to get the result you expect (50/50). Same case with the universe. Statistically you are more likely to be wrong than to be right. As to one thing you said and let me quote "If something come from utterly and absolutely nothing, we would have to expect to see this all of the time, on all levels" The thing is that we do see things come from nothing." I already mentioned that before. They are called quantum fluctuations. They come from nothing (no necessarily lack of anything). I would like to inform you that I'm taking a part in a school competition in 2 days and I need to prepare for it. I have been preparing for it. Therefore I didn't have a lot of time to respond to your arguments. Nonetheless I do hope I made a good case against fine tuning. Luckily the competition will be over before round 5 begins therefore I will have time to write a proper conclusion.