You'd need to show how the fine-tunedness is consistent with what you'd expect to see if an omni-God created the universe. The debate has gone off the rails though so it's too late for that.
I agree that countering his/her arguments won't make you win the debate because you need to provide a positive case for how the fine-tuned universe evidences an omni-God. It's not impossible at all.
"Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
- Paul Davies
If "evidence" is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" then all you'd need to do is show how the fine-tuned universe is indicative of an all-powerful, all-intelligent creator.
I wish this debate would've been taken seriously. Since Wylted a decided not to debate the topic, I'll put in my two cents.
Your main arguments, on complexity and fine-tuning, fail for the following reasons:
Basically, you've argued that intelligently designed things are supposed to work simpler, not more complexly. Thus, the complexity in the universe is not evidence of God.
If we found ourselves in a simple, plain, and small universe, this would be more indicative of having originated accidentally. The vastness, complexity, and intricacy of the universe has inspired people for thousands of years to question whether it's part of a grand design. If a creator God wanted to indirectly reveal himself, creating a complex universe would be preferable to a simple one.
Your next argument, about tuning, is off-topic. You're only debating whether the fine-tuned universe, as defined by the fine-tuned universe proposition, is evidence of God. Nowhere in the definition of the fine-tuned universe proposition does it indicate "tuning" in the sense that one might tune an instrument. "Tuned" in this sense just means that all the constants that determine that composition of the universe, had they been infinitesimally different, things like matter, complex chemistry, and the universe itself would be unlikely to exist.
You'd need to show how the fine-tunedness is consistent with what you'd expect to see if an omni-God created the universe. The debate has gone off the rails though so it's too late for that.
I agree that countering his/her arguments won't make you win the debate because you need to provide a positive case for how the fine-tuned universe evidences an omni-God. It's not impossible at all.
"Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
- Paul Davies
If "evidence" is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" then all you'd need to do is show how the fine-tuned universe is indicative of an all-powerful, all-intelligent creator.
I wish this debate would've been taken seriously. Since Wylted a decided not to debate the topic, I'll put in my two cents.
Your main arguments, on complexity and fine-tuning, fail for the following reasons:
Basically, you've argued that intelligently designed things are supposed to work simpler, not more complexly. Thus, the complexity in the universe is not evidence of God.
If we found ourselves in a simple, plain, and small universe, this would be more indicative of having originated accidentally. The vastness, complexity, and intricacy of the universe has inspired people for thousands of years to question whether it's part of a grand design. If a creator God wanted to indirectly reveal himself, creating a complex universe would be preferable to a simple one.
Your next argument, about tuning, is off-topic. You're only debating whether the fine-tuned universe, as defined by the fine-tuned universe proposition, is evidence of God. Nowhere in the definition of the fine-tuned universe proposition does it indicate "tuning" in the sense that one might tune an instrument. "Tuned" in this sense just means that all the constants that determine that composition of the universe, had they been infinitesimally different, things like matter, complex chemistry, and the universe itself would be unlikely to exist.
Well the debate hinges upon whether the fine-tuned universe is evidence of God or not. What qualifies as evidence is critically important.
I'm glad to see that this debate will continue. The definition of "evidence", which is crucial to the debate, has not been defined yet.