Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

If we do indeed find life there it will be a feather in your cap...

Why would it be a feather in anyone's cap? You'd simply go on to say that life on another planet is further proof that the universe was made for it.

---

I think what we are arguing here is semantics.

Not semantics, facts.

When I say they lie within a certain narrow range that is life permitting you deny there is any such range based on the possibility they had to be as they are.

No, I deny it based on the fact that there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are.

I reject that argument on the grounds it isn't a fact they had to be (for some unknown mysterious reason) as they are. By the same token I reject the argument they could be different than what they are because that is not a fact either.

So, you reject the notion that they are tunable and you reject the notion that they are not tunable and then you conclude that they are fine-tuned. Explain the convoluted logic behind that one.

Nonetheless it is a fact as Martin Rees points out in his book Just Six Numbers there are many characteristics of the universe necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to form without which our type of life would be extremely improbable (if not impossible).

Well, d'uh. That's like saying that if my parents hadn't met, I wouldn't have been born. That doesn't mean that my parents meeting was for the purpose of my birth.

Its not an established fact those characteristics had to be as they are, nor can we say they can be different but we can say they have to be extremely close to the value they are just for planets and stars to form alone never mind life.

Thus it is not an established fact that these were fine-tuned in any manner of speaking.

According to Martin Rees if the force of gravity was 10exp30 instead of 10exp36 it would have a significant impact on the formation of planets, stars and galaxies inspite of how narrow a difference those two figures are. Whether it could be different or couldn't be we don't know, regardless we do know the narrow value the force of gravity must lie within for planets and stars to form or at least to form in a configuration suitable for life to occur.

First of all, learn some science. And mathematics.

What you are saying here is that if force of gravity is one-millionth of what it is now, i.e. if it were changed to .0001% of its current value, then the formation of planetary bodies would be significantly impacted. No shit, Sherlock. You just changed it by 99.9999%. That is not a narrow range by any stretch of imagination.

Secondly,"force of gravity", really? You do realize that the force is not a constant and depends upon the mass of the object, right? There may be planetary bodies out there with the gravitational force in order of 10exp30 and others in order of 10exp36.

I know in response your going to deny this has any significance. I don't care if it has any significance to you or not, or whether you think it qualifies as evidence or whether you find it persuasive. The only people whose opinion matters are those undecided who might be listening because those are the only people who would be objective. If this were a formal debate, I'd lay out several more constants and how there exacting value allows life to exist.

Oh, I happen to think that it is extremely significant. What I don't think is that it reveals any sort of purpose or intent. The number, by itself, is evidence of nothing. But you are the one putting forward the hypothesis that it was intentionally chosen. For it to be chosen, there must be a set of other possibilities to choose from. Since you've rejected even that notion, not only have you failed to provide any evidence, but also undercut the premise of your argument. Putting forwards other constants would change little, because the same arguments would apply to that as well. If you care about the opinions of those reading your arguments, then you should make better ones - not ones that could be countered so easily.

I think this would just be another boring semantical argument whether a singularity can be classified as the universe. None of the laws of physics we are familiar with pertain to it. It's not the same as steam turning into water.

The universe is defined as "all that exists". If, at a given moment, the singularity is all that exists, then it is, by definition, the universe.

Secondly I don't think its an established fact the universe expanded from a singularity, it is a good theory with evidence behind it.

If we both agree with the statement, then there is no point in debating it. So, do we?

That's all the gibberish I have time to respond by at the moment.

Corrected that for you.