Fine Tuning, what is it?
So let's get a good idea of what the Fine Tuning argument is. Most proponents of this argument will tend to point out that many physical constants, if they were not the value that they have, the universe as we know it would not exist. One such example they'll provide is that if the universe expansion had been different, we wouldn't exist.
So what's wrong with the Fine Tuning Argument?
The main issues are this: A false Dichotomy, God of Gaps fallacy, and not to mention assigning probabilities to this when it hasn't been shown to be possible for the physical constants to be different.
The argument commits a God of Gaps fallacy by making the assertion that because science cannot explain this currently, that God is the best answer to the argument.
It also makes a false dichotomy by asserting that it's either God or random chance when in fact there are many other possibilities. One such possibility is that there are an infinite amount of universe and that we're in one that allow for our existence. I personally don't subscribe to the idea, but this is known as the strong Anthropic principle.
The argument at it's core assumes that the physical constants could have different values, something we have not observe being the case.
Finally, I'd like to leave this note. Let's be honest, if an omnipotent god created the universe, he did a pretty crappy job. For one, most of the Earth is uninhabitable for humans. Most of space is uninhabitable for humans. Go out into space and you'll suffocate, or you could get a lethal dose of radiation, or you would just freeze out there.
Thank you for taking your views, and I'll see you next time.
Most Helpful Opinions