I will prove to you that God exists

[Angrboda]

@Angrboda

I'm not invoking any specific explanation.  I'm pointing out that we simply don't know one way or another whether the characteristics could be other than what they are. 

Which makes it a moot point and the hill you choose to die on. Nor do we need to know if they could be different to ascertain the universe is fine-tuned for life.

If there is no evidence they could be different than what they are then you have no basis for making an inference of design, and thus you have no evidence for the existence of God. Design implies that the specific characteristics were chosen -- if there was no choice as to what these characteristics are, then there is no design involved and no reason to make that inference. Far from a moot point, showing that you cannot provide any evidence for design is central to whether your argument from design counts as evidence. Since you have no evidence that the values are the result of choice, you have no evidence of design.
 

Since any argument that a creator had to tune such things requires that they needed to be tuned, no such argument can get off the ground without some evidence that they would have needed tuning. 

In science, "fine-tuning" refers to the idea that certain fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe are incredibly precisely set for life to exist. These parameters, such as the laws of physics and the values of constants like the gravitational constant, must fall within a very narrow range to allow for the formation of stars, planets, and the complex molecules necessary for life.

Fine tuning is a metaphor derived from music and mechanics that is used to describe apparently improbable combinations of attributes governing physical systems.

The Templeton Foundation || What Is Fine Tuning?

It has been pointed out to you multiple times that these terms are being used in a metaphorical sense. You don't learn well. As the definition above points out, the improbability of the constants being what they are is an appearance ('apparently'), not a literal fact.

Do you think scientists who stake their reputation on the claim we live in a multiverse never considered your brilliant objection that for some unknown reason the universe had to come out as it did and that way was to allow life? No they avoid that argument because its not much different than saying the universe had to come out with the properties for life because it was intentionally caused for that purpose. Secondly as I wrote to you motherboards are fine-tuned to perform calculations and designed to come out exactly the same already fine-tuned. 

I don't know that many scientists have staked their reputation on the claim we live in a multiverse. I suspect many consider it a stronger or weaker hypothesis, but generally speaking they do not claim it. I think you have once again misrepresented other people's views in order to artificially make your argument stronger. But regardless, scientists are well aware of the limitations of the evidence for multiverses, and there is little uniformity among which multiverse hypothesis they consider, as the multiverse hypothesis is actually a family of hypotheses. Rees differs from Penrose who differs from DeWitt and so on. Your attempt to manufacture a consensus where none exists is not well evidenced nor convincing. And again, you haven't presented the views and reasons of ANY scientists, so for all any of us know, you're misrepresenting them and their views the same as you have misrepresented people in this thread. We have plenty of evidence that you say many things that simply are not true. Regardless, what matters is the evidence that this or that scientist bases their opinion on, not simply that they are an authority and hold an opinion. Even scientists can be wrong; science depends on it.

 It is a key premise of the argument from fine tuning that they could be or had to be tuned. 

No, the key argument is that they are tuned for life to exist. It makes not a slightest difference if they had to be that way. 

If the characteristics could not vary, then there is no alternative. Design requires that the designer chose one thing over another. If there were no alternatives, then there was no choice to be made, and with no choice, it isn't design, and if it isn't an example of design then it isn't evidence for God.

If there's no evidence for this, then it isn't a sound argument for God.  Since it has a material impact on the argument and issues in question, it is not a red herring.  Though I will welcome any explanation from you as to why you think it is.

If there's no evidence the universe had to come out as it did then it's not a sound argument. In legal parlance you're offering facts not in evidence.

That you haven't offered certain evidence that is required to make your case would be a part of the court record and very much a fact in evidence.

But for the sake of argument if it did 'have' to come out as it did how does it look any different than a circuit board deliberately designed to fine tolerances?

If the universe had to be the way it is, then we would have no more information than we have now, that it could have been designed, but no specific evidence points to it having been designed. Thus if the characteristics could not vary, we would not be justified in concluding that it was designed based upon the specifics of its characteristics. That's the point. If you don't have any evidence that the characteristics could vary, you don't have evidence specifically that it was designed. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed, only that you aren't justified in inferring design from the characteristics being what they are.

A red herring is a diversionary tactic, either in writing or conversation, that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic or clue. It's used to mislead or confuse, often to avoid answering a direct question or shifting the focus of a discussion

Quoting the definition doesn't explain your reasoning behind concluding that I have introduced a red herring.

The main issue is scientists tell us the universe is fine-tuned for life. In part for this reason they invoke multiverse theory. I don't care if my response satisfies you.

In part, some scientist propose a multiverse theory to offer a natural explanation for the seeming improbability if the characteristics could have been different. Since providing evidence that the characteristics could have been different is the issue here, that scientists propose a hypothetical in which the characteristics are assumed to have the potential to vary is not evidence that the hypothetical's assumptions are fact. If I offer the hypothetical that I were to get up and go to the fridge and select something to drink, I am not asserting that I am getting up, only that if I were to do so such questions would arise. Hypotheticals do not entail the necessary truth of their assumptions; they're offered to explore what might be in the case said assumptions are accurate, not that such assumptions are accurate. All this shows is that scientists propose hypotheticals.

Perhaps there are some connections between these numbers. At the moment, however, we cannot predict any one of them from the values of the others. Nor do we know whether some ‘theory of everything’ will eventually yield a formula that interrelates them, or that specifies them uniquely.

Martin Rees. Just Six Numbers.

In other words, "we just don't know."