1. it assumes facts not in evidence (God, fine tuning)

2 It fails to assess the very real reality that 99.9 % of the universe is anything but "Fine tuned for human life" and is in fact lethal.

Once upon a time there was a frog named Sam.
Now Sam was a smart little frog, and looked about him at
his pond. Everything was so perfect! The water was clean,
the insects plentiful with a plethora of lilypads to sun
oneself on.

Looking at the entirety of the pond together, Sam
determined that the Pond could not be natural, it must
surely have been created by something just for him. Sam
came to believe in the Pond God, Creator of his world.

When the drought came, Sam could not believe it was real
because he had come to believe the perfect pond was made
just for him, and surely the Pond God would never
let it dry out. So Sam made no effort to hop out, to find
a new pond.

He waited for his creator God to fix the pond . . .

Inspired by Douglas Adams

Evolution, whether personal or cosmic will always create the best solution for its environment. It doesn’t need design.

We are here, now, because our antecedents overcame the adversity of life, and their experience passed on to us, the ability to adapt from their experiences, through genetic transmission.

No designer required, just adaptation and the mechanism to pass that adaptability on to our offspring.

No objection, the fine tunning of the universe is interesting facts that have been extracted and understood ( to certain extent ) by pure human research and reason, which non God concept whatsoever has anything to do with. There is still a lot of road to travel and we understand that, that being said, the effort of research and reason will continue with or wirhout God's approval, help or whatever.

Is the universe 'fine tuned'?
Who decided on three options?
Could 'fine tuning' just be equilibrium of forces over time?
Why, if fine tuning was done, could it not be done by chance?
Who cares enough to argue about existence of a fiction character?

static

Argument for the existence of god is a huge argument from ignorance to me. What are your thoughts??

The writer didn't define "fine tuning", "physical necessity", or "design". I understand "chance".

As others have already said, the infinitesimal fraction of the galaxy, let alone the universe, that can support human life argues convincingly that the universe was not 'tuned' or designed for us. We are a RESULT, not a CAUSE, and thus naturally fit into the environment that molded us. In some theories there exist infinite universes that may or may not be similar to this one. It's arrogance of the highest order to assume an entire universe was made and 'tuned' just for this one little speck of dust around a mediocre start at the far edge of a minor galaxy to hold us.

I bought a new car once and after I got it home and fine tuned it for a while it ran really well.

Random chance given the vast timespan of the universe is just too big for the average human brain to conceive... that old analogy of a chimp banging on a keyboard will eventually write "War and Peace" is true and cosmic time is such a large number that the same chimp would have produced all of the literature ever written... in fact that is exactly what happened.

The first line of your premise is both flawed and incomplete. It is neither chance or design. If you mean by Physical Necessity that it is following the physical Laws of physics as we understand them, then okay.

Chance does come into play in some circumstances, but once the event occurs, it followers the prescribed Laws as understood by Physics. The encounter may seem completely random, but in actuality the same laws that rule their reaction after the event, allowed them to be in the location to begin with.

Therefore, your final line and conclusion is specious. Just because it outwardly appears random it isnt completely. The physical laws of physics are called Natural Laws be cause they are part of a larger system in which events and their results are predicated on logical, physical traits. Not by any outside design.

God is not my name, I really exist. I have eaten a taco. Why argue over the design of a tuning fork?

Show me an undesigned or non fine-tuned Universe to compare this to. Much like we do with natural things vs.designed things HERE... in reality!

The first premise presumes fine-tuning with no demonstration of an agent...go away and try again.
Assuming that something is fine tuned presumes agency...PLEASE demonstrate the agent.

Claim Number 1 is false because it posits design and thus a designer. Said designer is undefined outside the notions of primitive mythology. Nothing within the realm of Cosmology suggests or even outlines the concept of a designer. As noted elsewhere, this is more religion-inspired and Intelligent Design, debunked by science.

Design arguments come from a well-known Fallacy. The Fallacy is the Argument by Incredulity. It goes like this: "I can't believe it works this way, therefore .. (insert baseless assertion). As from Wikipedia: "Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding,... This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality."

The claim Number 2, "The Fine Tuning is not due to Physical Necessity or Chance." is entirely false. No evidence is put forth or even available to disprove that Physical Necessity or chance could result in the supposed Fine Tuning. Thus, the claim is false.

Hence, per reducto ad absurdum, Claim 3 is disproved.

Ignoring logic and science, suppose Claim 3 is valid. Suppose a creator god existed and exists. What additional information does that provide? What can one doe with that information? Does that information provide a reasonable basis that then tell one to undertake a life of superstitious fealty?

Answers: The Claim that god did it provides no reliable or useful information. The proposed model is utterly useless with zero predictive value, zero scientific value, and zero human life experience value. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Claims 1-3 don't qualify.

The Universe that we know is 99.9999% radiation filled vacuum.

Of the known matter in the universe, 99.9999% of it is stars and black holes, entirely uninhabitable for any life.

Of the rest of the known matter in the universe (moons, planets, space dust, asteroids) 99.9999% of that is barren or inhospitable for life.

Therefore, it is due to design.

A multiverse eliminates #2 from being true. It's neither proveble nor nonproveble

Beware...the atheists are arguing about religion....

This makes no sense at all.

How do we know that "fine tuning the universe" is really a thing or not?

that it's a lying piece of shit, a presuppositional loaded question that doesn't include any actual fact, that's my objection.

Actually it is backwards. The only way that we could exist as we do is if evolution fine tuned us to our universe and our laws of physics. Therefore evolution.

It is an argument for the existence of god.