The Fine Tuning of the Universe is best explained by a Designer

“Design is detected by filtering out chance and necessity and looking for evidence of contingency, complexity, and specificity. An event or object is then said to have an intelligent cause if it exhibits all of those factors. ” Pro uses an analogy of silverware in the comments relating to this, which is vital, and I shall address it here. This is the watchmaker analogy, which is greatly flawed. David A. Schwartz explains it best: “But let's think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, "Oh, this must be designed," what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree. If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don't have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that's exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place. ” (2) This is like Pro’s analogy with silverware and a designed universe. Also, we have dozens of examples of silverware being created, and we know that they don’t appear naturally. This makes us decide that silverware is designed. We have but one universe to use and no points of comparison, thus the analogy is useless. It’s like having a spoon and nothing else and then saying it is designed. “Bad design does not rule out design. ” That’s very true, I just wished to know whether your thoughts were that the design was perfect or not. Of course, I could look at a bunch of plates that fell on the ground because of some accident and say “it is design”. If someone asked me why someone would be so stupid as to do that horrible of a design, I could still say “it’s a design made to look bad”. Of course, this adds no credibility. “CON makes the claim that humans have adapted for life on Earth. Since he made this claim, I would like further explanation. What does he mean by adapted? How does he know this? Why have humans not adapted for life on Mars or Venus but only specifically Earth (as far as we know)? ” Evolution is the theory that explains this process. I thought Pro would know this theory, as he did not question the example I gave previously, but I explain it briefly. Evolution is the process that allows organisms to evolve over time with the help of mutations and natural selection. Natural selection is the way in which the fittest animals survive the fight of life. (1) We adapted to life on Earth because we’ve never been to Venus or Mars for as long as organic history goes. This is axiomatic; conditions on Mars and Venus are extremely different, and if no animal from Earth has set foot on Mars, we cannot possibly have adapted to the conditions there. “How does he know this? What does he mean by something natural creating something natural? ” I mean that the idea of an intelligence that lives outside of the physical realm (since the intelligence that created the physical realm must have existed outside of it in the first place) is absolutely something supernatural. A supernatural intelligence (an intelligence that exists outside the physical realm) is not really considered something “natural” just the same as a ghost haunting a house is not exactly something “natural”. My point is that as long as there is even the smallest probability that something natural created the universe, it will always be more plausible than thinking a supernatural designer did it. “how does nature itself create or design its own natural laws? ” I don’t know that this is what happened. That doesn’t mean a designer exists, because that option is still to be proven true. Of course, how did the designer create itself and his powers? And if the claim is that he always existed (which is mostly the argument), then why couldn’t some type of natural quantum principle have done the same too? “I make no claim that I am a mathematician, and so I borrowed them from what I think most will consider reliable and unbiased source” I think Pro refers to Hawking’s calculations on the universe re collapsing, which talks about the universe existing, not the laws existing. We don't know that not having a universe necessarily means not having laws. However, I’ll add that even if the probabilities he uses are to be used, those sensible probabilities don’t prove that the universe is designed. (Hole-maker example) He also talks about how the universe could be different than it is now (because of electrons), which I talked about already (them being fragile doesn’t mean they are designed). “and it was not my initial claim that I could prove a designer " only that it is the most reasonable explanation. ” Well, if you say that a designer is the most reasonable explanation, of course you have to prove the designer exists. You also said “I accept that I bear the burden of proof since I made the first positive claim”, so, you should prove that this designer exists in the first place. It is ridiculous to say the fine tuning of the universe is best explained by a Designer and then not prove that the designer exists, especially when there are more plausible explanations (natural and/or chance). “If I could prove there was a designer, or if CON could prove natural causes, we likely would not be debating on an Internet forum. Instead we would be accepting our Nobel prizes because one of us was able to do something no one in history had been able to do. ” Well, I guess that sums it up pretty well. We have a lot of I don’t knows, and natural explanations will always be more probable than supernatural ones. Since he can’t prove that a Designer even exists, I negate the resolution that it is the best explanation. Vote Con. (1). http://evolution.berkeley.edu... / (2). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...