From the same page here is the formulation of the fine tuning argument being considered for my convenience. I may need to look at it to get my head around the 14 points.

"Here is Drange’s formulation:

1. The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it.

2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.

3. Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one.

4. The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he “fine-tuned” those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems.

5. But such a being as described in (4) is what people mean by “God.”

6. Hence [from (4) & (5)], there is good evidence that God exists."

“The two are not mutually exclusive. Atheism and theism go to what you ‘believe’, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you ‘know’. So “agnostic” is a largely useless and unhelpful term as it tells us nothing of what a person actually believes, just that they don’t ‘know’, when none of us can really know anyway.”

So you consider it irrational to believe in God but you don’t think anyone can know whether God exists? Does that mean you accept definitions like this:
• a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

If that is where things are pitched how would you relate that to the comparison with unicorns?

Isn’t it agnosticism that you have argued that I don’t understand?

If I didn't understand atheism can you spell out the intervening steps between that and why everything from my anecdote and questions about philosophy to reasoning about burden of proof are wrong.

It doesn’t matter which formulation is being considered there, mjpb.

The ‘fine tuning’ argument is automatically disqualified as evidence since it is fallacious. It assumes that we have sufficient knowledge to discount every other possibility and assume a god. It is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Every time god was inserted into an unknown throughout history, a rational naturalistic explanation was found.

<<So you consider it irrational to believe in God but you don’t think anyone can know whether God exists?>>

Yes.

But we can still reach a high degree of certainly that no gods exist. The irrationality is in the certainty when it goes the other way since there is no evidence.

<<Does that mean you accept definitions like this: a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)>>

Yes, technically that includes me. But for all intents and purposes, I don’t waste time on entertaining the possibility of a god since doing so would erroneously give equal consideration to an idea that has not yet earned it.

<<If that is where things are pitched how would you relate that to the comparison with unicorns?>>

No-one can know, with absolute certainty, that at no time did unicorns ever exist anywhere in the universe, yet like with a god, we can still reach a high degree of certainty that they don’t/didn’t.

<<Isn’t it agnosticism that you have argued that I don’t understand?>>

More so I guess.

Although the dot points either bring into question your claim that you were once an atheist, or show that you’re saying things you know aren’t true.

Which is it?

<<If I didn't understand atheism can you spell out the intervening steps between that and why everything from my anecdote and questions about philosophy to reasoning about burden of proof are wrong.>>

I said “invalidated” not “wrong”. We’ve already demonstrated why their wrong; you’re just repeating discredited arguments now.

If you disagree, then by all means list dot points. But I don’t have the time to do a line-by-line rebuttal of 13 posts.

For now I'll give a response to most of the arguments you cut and pasted:

1. Isn't it using scientific evidence to support a philosophical conclusion? If so it can't be guilty. A famous scientist Erwin Schrodinger noted:

‘The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us….It knows nothing of beaurty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously….Science is very usually branded as being atheistic. After what we have said this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow… how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to the human mind.’

2. I listed 10 facts prior to you putting this forward. These facts were intended to support the fine tuning argument. None of them entailed a probability calculation. Certainly stating the facts is premised on the idea that it looks unlikely but again no probability calculation was attempted. I’ll assume that the author of the argument has encountered that which he ridicules so strongly but it seems unnecessary. We have a sample of observable planets and stars that give some indication of possible values and suggest the improbability of the 122 conditions. Further, if theists do actual probability calculations then they aren’t the only ones doing it.

http://www.universetoday.com/13741/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/

Finally to have real potency this needs linkage to his next argument.

3. I’m not so sure that we can take it as a given that time and space are infinite so, without wanting to sound too pedantic, that might not be the best way to introduce multiverses. There is no indication of anything prior to the big bang and the size of the infinite space has not been measured to determine that it is infinite.

The multiverse hypothesis is speculation that infinite universes exist in order to explain how the improbably might be probable. It is an interesting hypothesis. If the speculated multiverse exists then the apparently improbable is probable.

Multiverse proponent Martin Rees concedes in a 2003 paper that multiverse hypotheses are ‘highly speculative’, that only one can be right, and that it is possible that none are. Major variations of the multiverse theme are exemplified by the eternal inflationary hypothesis put out by cosmologists Andrei Linde and Alex Vilenkin and the black hole hypothesis of Alan Guth, David Harrison and Lee Smolin. There might be more.

The point is that the multiverse hypothesis is little more than a scientific hypothesis that can’t currently be tested or alternatively another philosophical perspective that the evidence can also be used to support.

Therefore if the mutliverse hypothesis is correct then the probability would be lower but we don’t know that it is (and when wielded like that it starts to look circular). Indeed Science Philosopher Richard Swinbourne argues “It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job. Further, as Rees has noted even if the laws are based on the multiverse then the multiverse must be caused by deeper laws concerning the ensemble of universes and the question remains where the deeper laws originated. If Swinbourne’s simplistic approach is adopted that is a non issue.

In any case when the multiverse theory is wielded as a more scientific approach to attack the fine tuning argument it needs to be considered that the competing possibilities are;

from what we can observe something is improbable

if something that someone has creatively imagined were true it would be probable.

Therefore we can state definitively that the fine tuning facts are probable? I am not so sure.

4. The argument incorporates the universe because some laws and constants are apparently universe wide. However only part of the universe called earth is known to be fine tuned to support life within the area we can observe. The author in the previous argument indicated a belief that the universe is infinite. Doesn’t that contradict his assertion about how much of the universe contains life? We have observed a very small portion of the supposed infinity. The point is that without the general rules that are surprisingly useful life would not be possible. People pointing this out do not require most of the universe to have the same conditions as earth and are fully aware that earth is the only known planet with life. The most curious thing is happening here supported by apparently universe wide surprises. Who knows, perhaps creating those conditions required a big other area to keep it in balance or something. The author can make philosophical speculation as can theists but, with respect, the multiverse approach appears to be more effectual then speculating on how the universe might best be assembled if his guesses were correct and that there is the possibility of a waste of space that thus might weigh in.

5. I’d like to see one of those agar solutions spinning round in space supporting life. I don’t think that argument has been properly thought through.

6. In order for the probability argument to have greatest effect that would be true and other relationships might be discovered. We’ll see. But until then the fine tuning is what we are stuck with.
7. We believe that there was a beginning of time and space. Our Holy scriptures starts with the words “In the beginning”. The creator is considered to be spirit not just some physical being floating around in space who has the same physical needs as our bodies have. We believe that the creator is an eternal God. For the record the scientific evidence to date points to a beginning often described as the Big Bang.

8. That would be true … for Gods. However we believe that there is only one.

9. He misses the point. The argument takes the evidence of fine tuning to argue that there is a creator not vice versa. If you assume that humanity is an accident and are committed to it you can use it as evidence of a multiverse. If you assume there is a God and are committed to it you can use it as evidence of God. But without any initial assumption it could provide evidence to point In either direction. The whole purpose of the argument is to point to the evidence of fine tuning as circumstantial evidence of a designer.

10. We don’t believe that God is a God of contradiction. Therefore the possibilities of achieving the balance and web of life might not be as great as he imagines.


11. Perhaps you can explain why this isn’t just 4 expressed in a different way.


12. a If we have an omnipotent God He could create the universe any way he wants and would know how best to make it. If He created the universe the size wouldn’t be as daunting as it is to us. Who are we to second guess Him? Assuming that we are talking about a God and also assuming that we know as much about designing universes as He and start second guessing seems contradictory.