The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

I now realize that I slightly misinterpreted the debate. At first I incorrectly inferred that my opponent was trying to disprove intelligent design, and to do this, he would find a flaw in the fine-tuning argument. However, now I realize that the debate is about proving whether the displayed fine-tuning argument's premises are true"disproving intelligent design (although perhaps a secondary goal of theirs) is actually not what the debate is about. I apologize for my misunderstanding, which probably caused me to waste words on matters that weren't important in regards to this specific debate. In either case, I do believe my opponent is flawed in his reasoning on why they think the premises of the argument are untrue, and therefore, I will continue the debate on the corrected path. Now, Con argues that the argument, although valid, has an untrue first premies. Con states that although it is true that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design, there is also a forth option that is missing"namely that there is a logical necessity. Let's take a look at this issue further. First, I would like to define "fine-tuning", which means: make small adjustments to something in order to achieve the best or a desired performance. Therefore, Con's fourth premise can be written as such: Since an already existing black-hole generator has to have the conditions for a black-hole generator (or else it would not be one), thus the universe had to have been adjusted to achieve the desired performance of a black-hole generator by logical necessity. Here is the problem. To fine-tune the universe into a black-hole generator, that means something was changed (by definition of fine-tuning) to make it have the function of a black-hole generator. As we can see, prior to the fine-tuning (and during the fine-tuning process), there existed something that was not the optimal black-hole generator. Therefore, logical necessity would not come into play until AFTER the fine-tuning completed. Therefore, the fine-tuning could not possibly be a RESULT of logical necessity, but the fine-tuning would CREATE the logical necessity once and only once the black-hole generator was completed. Another way to look at this is to say that either chance, physical necessity, or design required the fine-tuning of the universe to create a black-hole generator, which once created, obviously logically required the parameters and constants of a black-hole generator since it finally WAS one. If it is still unclear, here is an analogy. Consider a piece of pottery. Obviously, it is logically required to have the characteristics of a pot, since it was one! However, the logical requirement was not installed until once it was a pot. It had no part in the fine-tuning (creating) process. The artist could have sculpted a malleable piece of clay into anything he would like (design), or he could have left it there and allowed gravity to press it slightly (chance/physical necessity). In either case, the result did not logically need the characteristics of a pot until after it was created into one. Therefore, the logical need of a completed pot to have the characteristics of a pot does not fine-tune/shape the clay from a lump to a pot.