I did.
Wasn't convinced.
Too many baseless assertions, too much retro-activly fitting the data to the conclusion one wants to arrive.
"The argument goes like this:
- The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
- It is not due to law or chance
- Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design"
Well, I disagree with number 1, because you can't know if these are all the possible options.
It also already asserts fine-tuning, which I reject, since it hasn't been supported.
It also implies that there could be other ways the universe could have unfolded, which I find unsuported as well.
I also disagree with number two, since you can't justify excluding either of them.
...
Let me just say, that I absolutly agree, that, if this universe were any different, then life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist.
So what?
-We don't know if the universe could have been any different.
-We don't know if there couldn't be other potential universes which would have been much better suited for life than this one (which is extremly poorly suited).
-We have no justification to say that this universe is in any way special, just because WE value the fact that it allows the life that WE are part of.
But these three things are essential to the argument.
So, can you support any of them?