The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

For the gazillionth time, evolution doesn't explain away fine-tuning. You can describe all the processes you want that led to what we see, that doesn't negate a designer who intended all along for the universe to devolve into its present form -through these processes.

Are you saying that humans (and other mammals) were designed?   If so they were designed badly, who would design an organism with a common opening for breathing, feeding, drinking and speaking, that's a stupid design. Even with something as simple as a car has different openings for water, fuel, oil etc.

Many things that were thought to be useless or "stupid" in our body turned out to have a role. Calling an organism "stupid design" is an outright appeal to ignorance, where you simply don't know why things are designed the way they are, but still insist they're stupid. Stupid people usually do that.......

That post was about beauty, not fine tuning.  You stated that beauty was evidence of design, which it most certainly isn't.

But yes, evolution does answer some fine-tuning arguments, but certainly not all.  For instance, life in some radically different form could exist with some physical constants being quite different.  What that exact set of life-allowing constants is, we don't know, but life in some form might exist in a universe that was different from ours.

Life evolves to fit the universe -- the universe isn't designed to make a particular form of life.

If your belief in God is founded on the fine-tuning argument, you may find yourself disappointed one day.  You should read the opinion of actual scientists, such as Sean Carroll.  He has a nice debate on Youtube with William Lane Craig, and while both perform well, Carroll clearly makes the better case.

Even if something explains 100% why physical constants are the way they are, chances are the explanation itself will contain aspects of fine-tuning, we will always have this regress of explanations with regards to why reality is intelligible, and unless you invoke a necessary designer, you get nowhere.

1. There have been, and will be, billions upon billions of universes, all with varying parameters and conditions. Some of these universes will have conditions that allow life to arise, and others will not.

And how these billions of universes answer regress of causes? Are they eternal? Modern physics already excludes that. If they aren't, then they couldn't have created themselves, is it ?

2. This is the only universe ever to exist, but the parameters and conditions are the only possible way a universe could exist.

This assertion is vacuous. Whether it's the only possible way or not, it's still a way, a long, tedious way, the precision of which demands explanation outside the universe itself.

3. Your presupposition of the existence of a god has biased you so much, that you are only able to see design, even when it most likely does not exist.

Again, you have zero observation of undesigned things. How exactly, then, do you make the difference between designed and undesigned things -without, of course, restricting the scope of design to human machines.