Natural processes of the universe is what we are talking about.
Yeah, and the supposed fine-tuning.
First of all, fine tuning as used in Physics is not about what we don't know, it is about what we do know. There may be plenty we don't understand but we do know quite a lot.
What we know is but a pittance, a dust mote in a mansion, compared to what there is still unknown. Just because the volume of information we have seems like a lot, and, heck, could even take a lifetime to learn, that doesn't mean we aren't just barely making a tiny scratch on the surface of the topic. Also, we are talking universe origins here, something that is still relatively unknown. We can approximate the start of it existing, but we have no means of studying whatever existed prior to that point.
We know what those parameter's values are and what would happen if they were not as they are.
We know quite a bit of the physical properties of the universe, sure, but there are unknowns in that regard. If that wasn't the case, then how are we ending up dating some stars as being older than the universe from which they came, which obviously can't be right, and if it is, we have no working explanation other than human error.
We know that there are necessary requirement for this universe to exist and to permit life to exist.
We actually don't, only for a universe exactly like ours to exist, and for life exactly like ours to exist to some extent. Those aren't completely understood either. Consider this: abiogenesis experiments got promising results each time they were adjusted for changes in the models of the early Earth. Some were better than others, but all resulted in amino acids necessary for life as we know it to exist. Dozens of variations in environments, some purposely made to be hostile, can still get some indication for potential life formation. And that's just for life as we understand it. Yes, there are limits on the physics range that would allow that type of life specifically to exist, but that doesn't necessarily apply to life in general. In a universe where Oxygen has properties similar to carbon in our own, life may be oxygen based. Stuff like that could actually exist within our universe, and we just haven't found it yet. The properties of our universe make carbon-based life make sense, chemically speaking. In another universe, it might be uranium, or argon, or some element so strange we wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Or, maybe this is the only universe amongst a vast multiverse that can support life of any sort. That also makes it the only universe in which anything could become self-aware and question its own origins and existence, so even if this universe were extremely unlikely, it ended up existing anyways, so playing that numbers game is pointless. Unlikely events happen from time to time. In any case, we have no idea what physics combinations would permit life, because we don't know all the forms life could take. We only really know those on this tiny planet of ours.
These are things we know. WE know there are four fundamental forces of nature and what what they need to be to bring about our universe. Sure there are things we don't know but there a mass of information we do.
Or, there could be a fifth fundamental force we don't know about, and so on and so forth. If you go back far enough, any event will seem so unlikely as to be impossible. Doing it happens to be using statistics incorrectly, which is why you end up with that paradoxical result.
I don't know what you means by the last sentence here.
It's addressing you mentioning before that there are physicists that believe in a fine-tuned universe, and asking me if I honestly think my arguments haven't been addressed by them.
I am not sure that is true. I think it is incredible that we can know anything at all about the beginning of the universe, what elements came into existence and probably when. I don't think you really have an argument really. I think you might not understand what fine tuning actually means nor what we know about it.
I know fine tuning doesn't mean consistent universe, and that even if it did, black holes like to mess physics up and constants are just what we measure to the best of our ability. The "universal constants" are demonstrably not precise, just close enough that the degree at which we are off doesn't prevent their utilitarian uses from continuing while we try to improve upon them.
This speaks volumes about what you don't understand about the fine tuning being discussed. Which is fine, your training is in biological sciences. However, to claim that the argument is wrong you need to have better reasons than that.
And your training is in...? I may not be a physics major, but I do have to take physics classes as a requirement for my major. And so much chemistry that I get an automatic minor in it. And a statistics class and calculus, both which I excelled in. I don't think you understand how few unknowns it takes to throw a calculation off. It can take as few as 1, and statistics are explicitly useless on a cosmic scale. If I am wrong, REFUTE ME, show me the information, demonstrate that what I think is unknown is actually known, or my position still stands. That you don't like my reasons, that we don't know enough about the universe to make claims on it being designed or not, that's a personal problem, and I won't care unless you demonstrate an actual flaw in my reasoning.
You really believe that don't you?
I never defend a position I don't support without vocalizing that I'm doing it... well, typing it, in this case. I've seen the fallacy in action outside of this issue, with people assuming a natural formation that looked like steps to be a designed stairway, and other similar situations. I'll admit that I am not everyone, so I can't confirm how much the fine-tuning idea stems from that fallacy, but the behavior is mimicked, so it's not much of a stretch to think it contributes. I highly doubt it's the only contributor, that bias is pretty easy to overcome if a person tries.
