No, but we have shown that the fine-tuning argument fails to prove God's existence (or even give any good reason to think that God exists). That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, it merely removes a supposed reason to think that he does.
You addressed (unsuccessfully, for reasons I went on to point out) the less important points I made in
this post, but you didn't address the more important ones I made later on, including Kant's demolition job of your cosmological argument.
The fine-tuning argument
supports the notion of God existence's as the universe itself is balanced on a knife's edge to permit & allow for building blocks and environments that life requires.
Whether said evidence is compelling enough is a personal matter, as numerous scientists and physicists have come to acknowledge the existence of God based off the evidence of fine-tuning.
Fine-tuning provides examples of how nature is able to produce the current complexity of life, and when one reflects upon the unlikelihood of these examples, it may have the potential to point to a creator.
As such, the argument is advanced to suggest that nature cannot account for our present state of existence without relying upon direct, miraculous, divine intervention somewhere in the process. Otherwise, some sort of another explanation is required and it generally breaks down to:
1) A lucky accident
Very improbable since since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. An analogy would be asserting in the belief that a tornado could leave behind a perfectly working Lamborghini in mint condition whilst having rampaged through a yard of junk parts. That's some leap of faith.
Others contend that because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply would not be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, one could make the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed. Here, it is argued that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I would not be here to notice that I’m still alive!” A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity. This of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution; a tautology.
2) An Inevitability
From a more scientific standpoint, it is often claimed that the theory of inflation gives an adequate explanation for such precision and balance. The theory of inflation states that in the early stages of cosmological evolution, the universe underwent a period of exponential expansion. By proposing the right kinds of inflationary models, it is possible to show that some of the examples above — most importantly the critical density of the universe — would naturally take on the appropriate values. In this way, some of the universe’s fine-tuning seems to be explained away. Whether inflation occurs is a subject of debate. However, most theoretical physicists agree that some form of inflation took place, and more importantly this phenomenon could indeed explain many examples of fine-tuning. But what is not always included in the description of these inflation theories, is the extra fine-tuning the theories themselves require. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion — and to result in the necessary values for our universe’s critical density — inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. So precise are these values that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only
pushed one step back. As such, it only complicates the problem.
A second naturalist response is to suppose that the finely-tuned features of our world will someday show themselves to have been inevitable. That is, with an increase in our understanding of physics, it is possible that one day we will discover a Theory of Everything through which all other facts of physics could be explained. Such a theory might even explain why the universal constants and physical laws have to have such specific values. However, each of the finely-tuned features of our world put certain restrictions on the possibilities for the possible Theory of Everything. In the end, only a few specific theories would suffice, and this essentially results in a fine-tuning problem even for Theories of Everything. As such, it is inadequate.
3) The Multiverse
There is a final response, known as the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis claims that there are many other universes in addition to our own. Each of these has different properties, and different values of the basic constants of physics. If the number of these universes is extremely large, it would be less surprising that one of them would happen to provide the specific conditions for life. At first glance, the proposition of many other universes sounds impressively scientific. However, one must keep in mind that the likelihood of ever being able to observe evidence of another universe is extremely remote, since it is unlikely that information could ever pass from one universe to another. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the process which produces all of these universes would randomly set all the physical parameters in such a way that every possibility is realized. It could be that there are constraints on the characteristics of these many universes and that the production process itself would have to be fine-tuned in some way to guarantee that we get enough variety of universes to account for our remarkable cosmic home. Additional problems arise with the details of proposing a multiverse, which are enumerated in the suggested readings below.
As such, as it stands the multiverse is mere conjecture and is highly likely to never be observed or in fact proven. A mere theory.
To me, none of these are even remotely compelling enough and given all the ample evidence of God elsewhere, God is the answer.
)precisely because for the most layman skeptics science and religion in the same sentence already sound blasphemous. "Didn't science prove religion wrong long time ago?"
