The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

---Fine-Tuning Definition, Begging The Question, and Equivocation--- Pro defines fine-tuning as: "Make small adjustments to something in order to achieve the best or a desired performance. " However, it should be clear that this definition with regards to the fine-tuning argument cannot be used if the fine-tuning argument is going to be sound and succeed. This is because this definition of fine-tuning presupposes a designer from the get go (as it involves "desire", or someone to give the value judgement of "best"). However the argument for fine-tuning is supposed to concluded that there is a designer; not presuppose it from the very first premise. Therefore, if we go with my opponent's definition, the fine-tuning argument is unsound due to question begging. Begging The Question Fallacy: "Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. " (. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) Because the first premise would assume a designer based on my opponent's definition, it follows that this definition cannot be used because it would make the argument unsound due to circular reasoning. Professional philosophical defenders of the fine-tuning argument are aware of this issue, such as Robin Collins and William Lane Craig. By fine-tuning, Collins means that if the universe didn't have the physical values it has, life would not exist (. http://commonsenseatheism.com...). Since this conception of fine-thing doesn't beg the question then my opponent must accept it (or another definition similar to it) if he wants any hope of the argument not being logically fallacious. Famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig, who rigorously defends the fine-tuning argument, explains why my opponent does not properly understand the meaning of fine-tuning: "Properly understood, the term 'fine-tuning' is a neutral term and is therefore used in cosmological discussion, even by those who do not think that the universe is a product of design. .. 'Fine-tuning' with respect to nature's fundamental constants and quantities means that small deviations from the actual values of the constants and qualities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting. .. Now I agree with you that 'fine-tuning' has connotations of design. But you need to appreciate that scientists often use terms that have connotations that are contrary to the technical meaning of such expressions and are therefore grossly misleading to the laymen. .. Taking such terms literally is a mistake. " - William Lane Craig (. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...) So the term 'fine-tuning' that my opponent is using, is not the valid meaning of the term 'fine-tuning' used by cosmologists and by proponents of the fine-tuning argument. It is simply false that the average every day notion of the term 'fine-tuning' can be used in the same way that 'fine-tuning' is used in the context of the debate. Therefore my opponent, unfortunately, is guilty also of an equivocation fallacy: Equivocation Fallacy: "Equivocation is a fallacy by which a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. " (. https://www.thoughtco.com...) In conclusion, no serious advocate of the fine-tuning argument would ever accept my opponent's definition of fine-tuning. This is because it would blatantly make the fine-tuning argument question begging and would entail an equivocation. However, if my opponent doesn't use his flawed definition, then this whole argument in his last round is rendered useless (as it presupposes his flawed definition). Either way, my opponent's arguments are not successful. ---After The Fine-Tuning--- My opponent agrees that if the universe was a black whole generator then it having any other non-black hole generating properties would be a contradiction. However, Pro argues that this is only after the fact that the physical parameters were adjusted to make the universe a black whole generator in the first place. The problem with this argument, as I have already proved, is that it assumes a false definition of fine-tuning that no professional proponent of the fine-tuning argument would ever adopt. The fine-tuning my opponent is talking about is the literal definition, but this is not the definition of fine-tuning relevant to this debate (if it was, it would render the fine-tuning argument invalid and therefore unsound and unsuccessful). I will repeat what William Lane Craig said: "Taking such terms literally would be a mistake. " - William Lane Craig We need an explanation for the fine-tuning, which means that we need an explanation as to why the physical constants and quantities are life-permitting instead of not. That's all fine-tuning means with regards to the fine-tuning argument; any definition about change entailing value judgements like "best", or change caused by "desire" is invalid as it would render the fine-tuning argument logically fallacious. I have laid out a sketch of a plausible scenario which would explain why the constants and qualities have the values they do. The universe could be a black hole generator by its very nature, but I mean from start to finish; meaning there would be no "after the fine-tuning" as my opponent puts it. This would mean that the universe couldn't have had any physical values that didn't allow for the generation of black holes (and life as a necessary bi-product) as that would be a contradiction. So logical necessity is still a valid explanation. It would only not be a valid explanation if there is an "outside" the universe (like there is an "outside" a piece of pottery, like in my opponent's example), and something "outside" the universe which could have produced another universe instead of the universe we actually exist in. However, this notion would imply a cosmological argument is needed in order to make design argument work. However, that just seems like it would amount to using one argument for God to justify a premise in another argument for God; which would be question begging. Thus, the fine-tuning argument would still not succeed; it must stand on its own two feet. ---Final Conclusion--- My opponent's argument against logical necessity fails miserably for the multiple reasons I mentioned. It would not matter anyway, because even if it succeeded all that would prove is that logical necessity needed to be ruled out. If it needed to be ruled out then clearly it needed to belong to the list of physical necessity, chance, or design. This means that no matter what, the first premise is still a false-trichotomy; meaning the fine-tuning argument is necessarily non-successful. Pro hasn't even begun to rule out physical necessity or chance, so my opponent hasn't even come close to meeting his burden of proof; while I have proven my case beyond reasonable doubt. The resolution is still negated.