Fine Tuning Principle: Devastating Disproof and Scientific Refutation of Atheism.

[Bucky Ball]

Let’s formulate the Fine Tuning Argument in logical steps:
1.      The Life-Permitting Possible Configurations of the Universe are vanishingly small compared to the Life-Precluding ones (as amply admitted/documented by the above Scientists/Researchers).

This assumes that we understand the real laws of physics well enough to say this. We don't. In particular, the constants that you are talking about are parameters in our current theories. We do not know whether or if those constants *could* be different values. We don't know whether or not there is some process that forces those constants to be the values they have. We don't know that those constants are the same even inside of our universe but outside of the observable universe. If there is a multiverse, we don't know whether those constants are different in different 'universes'.

Next, even allowing for the constants to vary, the universe we are in is incredibly hostile to life. The vast majority of the universe would kill all life as we know it instantly. Instead, the constants seem to be 'tuned' to give complexity. They allow for complex nuclei to form, complex feedback loops, the formation of multiple generations of stars, etc. Life, as far as we can determine, is a consequence of that complexity, but there is NO reason to think life was a 'goal'.

In fact, the *only* place in this universe where we *know* life exists is one small planet orbiting one dwarf star in one galaxy among hundreds of billions. Now, life *might* be common, we don't know, but at this point the only life we know of is on this one planet. That hardly makes the constants 'tuned' to form life.

I would also point out that if there is a multiverse, it is possible that *all* combinations of the constants appear in some universe. If that is the case, they our universe is simply one that has life (because of the complexity) while the vast majority of others do not.

Finally, life arose in this universe and so is adapted to this universe. If the constants were different in a way that still allows complexity, it is reasonable to think that life would eventually evolve there, but be quite different than the life we see here on Earth.

2.      Thus, on Chance alone, it’s reasonable to say no life at all should ever have existed.

This assumes that we know the distribution function for those constants. And, if they can vary, or how they vary over time and location. The claimed unlikeliness is the case *only* if we assume a uniform distribution based on the specific constants we use for our theories. Even if we keep the same theories, but use other natural constants, the distribution would change.

3.      Therefore, granted the existence of life, Design is a vastly superior explanation to chance, for the fact of why life exists at all in the first place. Chance just isn’t very good at creating life, it turns out, unfortunately for Atheists, because the life-permitting range is mind-bogglingly narrow.

So, you are assuming the constants are fixed once and for all (we don't know that). You assume that there is no mechanism for them to change naturally (we don't know that). You assume that because a universe that is incredibly hostile to life is produced, that life is the goal of that universe (which seems incredibly unlikely). You assume that if something unlikely happens, it is better to assume it was designed (which is very far from being the case even within the universe).


In summary, yes, if some of the constants were even slightly different, no stars would form, no atomic nuclei would form, etc. But we don't know whether those constants *could* be different, how or what would make them change, or even whether the values they now have are simply equilibrium values. Second, life in this universe seems to be rare, possibly even vanishingly so. To think the universe was designed for life seems to be quite a stretch given this fact. Also, an unlikely event does not imply design.

You fail on every point.

I can toss 32 pair of dice on my desk right now, and the resulting pattern has the probability of 1/googolplex. 
It's not designed.