Become a theist

That is not the fine-tuning argument. Again, you are completely ignorant as to what fine-tuning refers to. I'm going to show your posts to my friends so that we can laugh at you.

That is my point. There is no evidence for these deities or others such as Shangdi or the Demiurge. The fact that the universe and life exists and there are stories giving these deities credit for that is not evidence.

Fine-tuning attempts to prove the existence of an intelligent creator, in any case, and not necessarily a God of a particular religion.

How does that make sense of a chance universe sustaining itself? How can something that is not 'about' anything do this or anything?

You seem to be under the impression that the teleological fallacy somehow justifies the fine-tuned-universe fallacy.

A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias.

However, even if you wanted to accept that a "fine-tuned universe" was "evidence" in favor of some sort of creator gods, THAT LEAVES YOU WITH LOGICAL DEISM.  It is an astronomical leap to any specific particular flavor of "theism".

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Marduk.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Brahman.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Nanabozho.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Pangu.

All of these are equally valid statements.

A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias.

And meaning - why do we derive meaning from the meaningless and what difference does it make in the big picture? It means nothing in the big picture, yet to some degree are you acting like it does by thinking meaningfully? 

They have just the same evidence of YOUR God existing.

Nevertheless, to date, this is the only planet we know of that sustains life to my knowledge. Through the vastness of the universe, this planet seems unique. I have a reasonable explanation for that, do you? If so, then please state it. I'm willing to learn.

And meaning - why do we derive meaning from the meaningless and what difference does it make in the big picture? It means nothing in the big picture, yet to some degree are you acting like it does by thinking meaningfully? 

Quanta is quantifiable and empirically and scientifically verifiable and real and extant (and emotionally meaningless).

Qualia is qualitative and experiential and private and personal and imaginary and immaterial (and emotionally meaningful).

A dog has a qualitative experience and values things and activities that you do not.

A fish has a qualitative experience and values things and activities that you do not.

An ant has a qualitative experience and values things and activities that you do not.

Simply because you value things does not in any way imply that those particular things have any intrinsic meaning or value to a dog or a fish or an ant or even necessarily to another human being. 

You have a sense of value and meaningfulness for the exact same reasons the dog and the fish and the ant have a sense of value and meaningfulness.

Your emotional queues and motives and desires are integral aspects of your survival instinct.

You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/

The evidence that points to a creator in general.

A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias

Nevertheless, to date, this is the only planet we know of that sustains life to my knowledge. Through the vastness of the universe, this planet seems unique. I have a reasonable explanation for that, do you? If so, then please state it. I'm willing to learn.

All dogs love eating bananas.

Of course, I've only ever seen one dog in my entire life and only fed it one slice of banana, but it seemed really really happy to me.

I have therefore concluded, based solely on this one brief experience, that all dogs love eating bananas.

This is an example of sample-bias.

If your sample is too small, your conclusions cannot be considered reliable.

I am saying there is evidence of a creator. Just not a specific one from any particular religion.

Quanta is quantifiable and empirically and scientifically verifiable and real and extant (and emotionally meaningless).

What does it have to do with meaning?

I'm not arguing for a dog or fish since they do not have the same reasoning power that we do. They can't meditate on meaning as we do. They can't reason with each other as we can, with abstract thoughts that we put into practice in subduing our world. 

If there is no intrinsic value to being human then is it justifiable to eliminate all humans (you first)?   

You have a sense of value and meaningfulness for the exact same reasons the dog and the fish and the ant have a sense of value and meaningfulness.

First, establish that a fish thinks of itself as valuable. Show me how it contemplates its meaning. 

Your emotional queues and motives and desires are integral aspects of your survival instinct.

Or my emotional queries and motives are from a meaningful mindful Being that has created us in His image and likeness. Like produces like. Thus, we are meaningful beings who can investigate our meaning. Show me how a rock dissolving and creating minerals that produce intelligent being over vast amounts of time, that leads to meaningful thought. It is YOUR presupposition that it does, not mine.

You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/

What does this link signify? It has nothing to do with the discussion. 

Sample bias? The point is that to date there is no EVIDENCE of life on other planets. To date, this planet seems as if it is the only one in a vast universe capable of sustaining life. To date, that is all you have to work with. Everything else is speculation. To date, which argument makes sense?

If a claim is more plausibly true than false, it is more rational to believe the claim rather than withhold belief or disbelieve it.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical Deistic Being adds any meaningfulness to human existence.  Please explain.

I haven't been following the discussion but this caught my eye.  I keep seeing this claim but I have yet to hear a valid reason for it. For whatever reason people equate a "Deist" God with one not existing, how does that follow? If ANY God were to exist, whether that be Deist or any Creator it means you have a specific origin and purpose for your individual self/soul. It would be like saying your entire history, family, experiences, knowledge all have no meaningfulness to you. Why would you think that? If any God exists don't you want to know about that? how would it NOT be relevant to you would be my question?  I'm aware the definition of Deist God says "is not directly involved" and so lets say that might be true, how does that change what I wrote above? do you really think a Creator would do all of this and just ball out though?? you can believe in a Deist God and still have meaning, in other words God created you for some reason and expression obviously because you are here.  Even if we erase all the God names religions put forth all this is still intact. If your soul comes from God then you are a apart of that, there is no way around it and in that alone should be meaningful to you at least on some level no? what if its true that God doesn't "directly interfere" but does so through you? in other words what if your connection to God was your core conscious awareness and not the external world? none of this has meaning to you?

And it could be right and if you don't know then what is more sensible and reasonable to believe

and what is the case for God (I defend only the biblical God and will argue against any other as being nothing but the construct of the imagination)?

Since you are a philosopher the question is how does a universe materialize naturally and which natural theory or paradigm (or the one you support - what is it?) is right if any?

If you can't say, then I see you divorcing yourself from the subject under discussion since you have made a judgment above.

Regarding evidence, the problem is that none of us were there

As an atheist, your worldview would see life coming from the non-living since you do not ascribe it coming from a living Being - God, would it not?

Possessed information about something IS knowledge.

Evidence is information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue. If there's more evidence favoring the claim, the belief is both rational and based on knowledge.

Have you seen the 2012 Ridley Scott movie "Prometheus"?

That movie portrays a race of super intelligent beings that create humans (and all life on earth) but then lose interest and forget about them and go on to what they consider much more interesting things.

Kind of like a lab assistant that grows some mold in a petri dish.  Sure they "made it" but does that fact alone give its existence some sort of intrinsic "meaningfulness"?

But be warned: if history is anything to go by, I'm one of the top 5 debaters of this site.