No, that is not my argument.
I'm not saying that I believe that the constants can be different. I hold no such belief. Perhaps they can't be different from what they are, and that would actually hurt the fine-tuning case, because if the constants can't vary, what need is there for a fine-tuning God?
I'm saying that we don't know the explanation for how it is that constants exist at their current values, or how they come to adopt those particular values if they could be different.
Without that knowledge, any speculation about divine intervention is premature.
What you are doing is a sly effort to shift the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. It's similar to the apologetic where the apologist suggests that a cell has some ridiculously small chance of self-assembling, and therefore an intelligent designer must exist. That doesn't take into account other potential ways in which abiogenesis might occur, even if they are not fully understood yet.
My argument isn't an argument from ignorance, but rather an argument that respects ignorance where it actually exists.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ευδαιμόνια
I really can't understand your argument, if the constants vary God exists? That doesn't make sense because you bound God with the constants when God is not Fine Tuned, He isn't bound by physics, He is the Tuner. In addition to these constants, there are also the arbitrary quantities which serve as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, such as the level of entropy in the early universe, which are also fine-tuned for life. If one may speak of a pattern, it would be that fine-tuning, like a stubborn bump in the carpet, just wont go away: when it is suppressed in one place, it pops up in another. Moreover, although some of the constants may be related so that a change in the value of one will upset the value another, others of the constants, not to mention the boundary conditions, are not interdependent in this way. In any case, theres no reason at all to suspect so happy a coincidence that such changes would exactly compensate for one another so that in the aftermath of such an alteration life could still exist. It appears that the fine-tuning argument is here to stay.
There are two most common hypotheses as explanation about the Fine Tuning, Multiverses and the Theory of Everything. Which of the two do you wish to discuss?
I think divine intervention for you is something mystical like magic that's why you don't accept it, it is not. We are the images of God, we can reach the boundaries of the Material world and look the processes that shaped the Universe through our immaterial minds, without even travel back in time, that's not mystical, you can do it, i can do it, a kid can do it. if we could create another Universe the process would be exactly the same to create humans, as Carl Sagan said "it takes a Big Bang to create an apple pie"
I think chance as explanation of life is wishful thinking because we can't observe chance anywhere! That's why Atheists now move chance before the Universe into a safe spot that can't be observed and thus not falsified.
