The fine tuning argument

[theVOID]

The laws of physics hold true only in observations of the past.

False, they hold true in the present too, and can be used to predict the future.

Also, certain laws of nature where not always there, many have arisen contingent upon a more fundamental law of nature. The laws that emerged from inflation were not always there, for example all relativistic laws are contingent upon frames of reference in spacetime, so before the emergence of spacetime relativistic laws were not applicable.

The past does not dictate the future because of the continuing complexity derivative of Cause and effect.

This makes no sense. If everything in spacetime is causal then everything in spacetime is determined, regardless of how complex the interactions become.

If there are acausal causers in the universe then the past does not determine the future, it only informs the majority of it.

To assume the laws of physics will be true in te future a stable platform with which to base the assertion is necessary.

Wrong again, to assume the laws of physics will remain constant does not require a logical necessity, just an informed probability.

Firstly, there are in fact some proposed phenomenon that necessitate the laws be constant, such as the initial conditions.

Secondly, Even without such necessity we can still assume the laws are constant due to reliability. Due to the reliability of the measurements yielding identical results and no mechanism by which the results could be made different, we can reasonably conclude that they will continue to be constant.

Observable human history is neither long enough nor reliable enough to be considered stable to support an axiom of that magnitude

So if our most stable and reliable axiom is not stable and reliable enough, what is left to propose? A less stable and reliable axiom?

The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe

Firstly, your argument is all over the place, I don't know if this is because of all the false premises it contains or because you hastily scraped it together.

What exactly do you mean by "The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe"

Within the universe on a macro scale every effect has a cause,

Agreed.

Therefore the laws of phyisics have and need a signular, stable cause to coninue in the future

*facepalm*

Large scale events are subject to cause and effect because the quantum indifference tends to wash out. The quantum laws still allow indeterminacy and uncertainty, but the laws themselves are still constant.

Due to the subjectivity of observation the most stable cause would rest outside the universe

This is a complete nonsense statement.

The fact that observations are subjective does not mean the universe needs an external cause.

The mathematics that determines such an event is no subjective.

Also this is contingent upon one of the false premises, the idea that the universe was caused. Space time was cause, but spacetime arose from energy, and that is neither created nor destroyed (first law thermodynamics) so a cause for a universe (keeping in mind causation requires time) is a meaningless idea.

If something is outside the universe it is unobservable unless it can effect within the universe
God is a singular source outside the universe that is reported to have effects within the universe , and is a probable solution

So your hypothesis should be testable. Where does he interact? in what way? What are the results?

This should make your hypothesis falsifiable as if God is shown not to interact then your conception of him is false.

Also, all you have done is asserted that a god exists, and then claimed that this assertion is probable even though you have no evidence. Did you mean possible? I'd say maybe it's possible but probable? Certainly not.

Here's a first atempt with all I have time for.. I know it's weak.. have at it.

It's really bad