The fine tuning argument

[solja247]

If the universe wasn't in a position to support life, this argument wouldn't exist, because life wouldn't exist.

Douglas Adams parodied this argument:

So far we are the only inteligent beings, in this universe to contemplate existence and other complicated questions...

Put simply, the only reason we consider this to be an argument is because we are here, and we can't exist if the universe were somehow tuned some other way. It doesn't mean the universe was tuned *for us*; it just means that we are possible because the universe is like this.

You are getting your arguements mixed up. The Arthmophic principle is about the Earth appears to be designed for us (Earth is the only planet with water in all three forms). However, the fine tuning arguement is about if the parameters were out just a little bit no elements or universe would exist today. No stars, black holes, planets etc, the fine tuning arguement is compelling...

To repeat myself from an earlier post today: The teleological argument is one of the oldest and most thoroughly refuted arguments for the existence of God.There is no consensus on the proposition.

No one has refuted it. Dawkins attempted to refute it in, 'The God Dellusion' However, most philosophers dont take any of his arguements seriously. After all, when we talk about origins, we are talking about philosophy, not science. Although, science can help our belief in how the universe began...

Null argument, if the universal constants were different all it would mean is that some other kind of life would have arisen. There is NO requirement for our kind of life to exist.

No life or simple elements like, Hydrogen...

I think he's right in saying Dawkins says he dosen't contend the universe APPEARS to be designed, but he then conveniently ignores that when Dawkins says that it is only as a starting point to go onto his "who created the creator" argument. Good old out of context, creationist/ID misquoting at it's best.

I did not misquote him! I never said he believed the universe had been designed. I said he doesnt contend the fact, that the universe appears to be designed, a big difference mate!

It refutes design becuase it says "gee look on the universe could be hugely different if any of these parameters varied by even the smallest fraction". This ignores the fact that if true, the so called Design of the universe is fundamentally flawed becuase its therefore hugely fragile and an omnipotent creator would have been able to creaste something more robust and more likely to lead to the result intended. Still a problem for those proposing the argument and not for the alternative hypotheses on the universe.

I dont see your point? Or how you refute the fine tuning arguement. Your areguement goes like this:
God should of created the universe like X
The universe is Y
Therefore God didnt create the universe because the universe is Y

Other forms of life might have arisen.

Like what?
Martians?