The fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional, intelligent designer of the cosmos.

I wasn't planning on making this a debate about my "intellectual standard", this is just a debate regarding whether the fine-tuning argument demonstrates an intentional agent/ intelligent designer or not (I apologise for the typo, and for any confusion). Either way, I will still address my opponent's last round. P1: "This kind of hypothetical question tells me you were considering the probability, and that you were allowing yourself to think in terms of it. You would not be able to do this, unless it met the expectations of your level. Therefore P1) meets your intellectual standard, and thats so far a 1/6 score" - yuiruAs I already explained, even if I were to accept premise 1, it still doesn't negate life as we don't know it. P2: "P2 meets your level expectation because you are able to conceive it. "Sure, I can conceive of different physical constants. P3: "This is irrefutable evidence of you indirectly agreeing that some explanation is necessary. "No, it really isn't. If the constants can only be conceived of, then an explanation for why we have this specific set of constants isn't necessary. P4: "Therefore, because you have stated that it is an argument against intelligent design, it does not fail to demonstrate an intelligent designer because thats not what its goal is according to you. "This makes no sense. If the fine-tuning argument is an argument against intelligent design, then clearly the argument doesn't meet my standard as an argument for intelligent design. P5: "This directly implies you agree this being is what people mean by "God" and what you yourself mean. "Sure. Conclusion regarding my "intellectual standard"My opponent's whole round was based on a misunderstanding (which I will take the blame for, I guess). Either way, my opponent did not demonstrate that the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design succeeded according to my intellectual standard (my opponent didn't even defend the idea that the fine-tuning argument supported Theism). It is irrelevant anyway, I would like to keep this a regular fine-tuning debate, which would actually be more beneficial for my opponent as well (and was the whole point of me creating this debate in the first place). Continuing my case My Fine-Tuning Argument for Atheism (Inspired by the original Fine-Tuning Argument for Atheism)So, even if I granted the first 3 premises of the fine-tuning argument for Theism (stricty for the sake of argument, mind you), it could be shown that the argument actually supports Atheism. P1: This particular combination of physical constants within the universe which are capable of sustaining life are necessary or have a necessary part (the physical necessity of being capable of sustaining life over other conceivable constants). P2: If life lying in this very narrow range of constants was due to an intelligent designer of the cosmos, then this particular range of physical constants in the universe which are capable of sustaining life would be contingent to this intelligent designer (Thus, this particular combination would not be necessary or have any necessary part but would be completely contingent to this being). P3: This particular combination of physical constants within the universe are not contingent (from P1). C: Life lying in this very narrow range of constants is not due to an intelligent designer [1] The Theist could deny Premise 1, but then they would have to deny the entire fine-tuning argument for Theism. If the combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it, then these constants are necessary for life, and no other constants could produce life. The Theist could deny Premise 2, but of course they would have to deny the Argument from Contingency for Theism. So, it seems that the fine-tuning argument actually supports Atheism over Theism, and it does not successfully demonstrate an intelligent designer. Conclusion An extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, and is exactly what we would expect to find if Atheism were true. However, this is not what we would expect if Theism were true, and the argument fails to demonstrate an intelligent designer of the cosmos, and life itself. Unless my opponent can: 1) Logically rebut the Fine-Tuning Argument for Atheism2) Logically rebut my objections to the premises of the Fine-Tuning argument for Theism (of course, after refuting the Fine-Tuning Argument For Atheism)and 3) Argue that the Fine-Tuning Argument, actually supports intelligent design . .. Then I believe I have the upper hand in this debate (once more, I apologise for any misunderstanding regarding the "many levels" typo). Source(s) [1] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...(PS. The video included is just for kicks, and is not really part of my argument) . http://www.youtube.com...;