Originally posted by David C
Actually, I consider the irony to be that anyone still feels "fine tuning" to be any sort of valid argument that requires investigation or hypotheses. Fine, the conditions in the universe led to, but will not end with, our species in this tiny corner of an immense galaxy in this ever-expanding universe. It did not, however, lead to talking lions or sentient ...[text shortened]... I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "[/quote]
..
It is not so easy as you claim to discount the fine-tuning argument.
The Cosmological Constant poses a genuine problem ("the cosmological constant problem" to be exact) to cosmologists in search of a naturalistic solution to how our universe came to be as it is. For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-tuned" to one part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. And the Cosmological Constant, it so happens, turned out to be exactly that.
In short, physicists can't explain why the initial conditions of our universe, the laws which govern everything, were so precisely tuned to produce a stationary universe. Since for naturalists it is unimaginable that our universe may have a Creator, they have to resort to alternate explanations, no matter how ridiculous. It is not for no reason that physicists are seriously considering that there may be an infinite amount of universes, among other theories, in order to make the apparent fine-tuning of our universe inevitable and unsurprising.