One of the arguments Theists use to defend their claims of the necessity of the existence of a creator of the Universe is the fine Tuning argument. Everything is exactly as we need to be able to exist inside the universe. Everything and all conditions are perfectly adjusted to suit everything inside the universe in it and to suit the survival and growth of all living organisms on earth.

One of the absurdities of this argument is that God has made all this just to make life on earth possible. This in and of itself refutes the claim that God has made everything. Why would God go through all this just to produce such a result. Couldn’t God make a world that all living organisms on earth could survive in it without creating countless galaxies and all he created just to reach the same result? Theists might respond to that by stating that God wants to impress us with what he can do, with his powers and capabilities, so that we would believe in him. Well, if he really wants to convince us that he is omnipotent then he would show us that through stronger methods. Clearly he doesn’t want anyone to notice how powerful he really is or else he would have tried to demonstrate his powers, capabilities, and omnipotence to us in greater quantity and quality. He is not making anything that shows anyone that he is all powerful. Just stuff that was created long ago, and that’s it. He is not trying hard enough to show us his powers or omnipotence. So this makes the entirety of the universe and all that is in it except maybe our galaxy totally useless. Also, it means that God couldn’t have created a life sustaining planet without all that useless stuff, that is, he cannot create a planet like earth without having to create an entire useless universe in the process. So God is not doing a good job convincing us that he is all powerful, and the examples that he intended to convey this message to us (the message that he is omnipotent) through them work against proving this message to be true, that is, these examples further demonstrate how incapable he really is, or how he is not omnipotent.

Theists have a habit of walking down the street and pointing to something and saying see how great, complex, beautiful, and wonderful it is, therefore God (God created it, God is very Great, and God is powerful). It is ironic and embarrassing how a deeper look at the universe and everything that is in it leads to the conclusion of how God is not powerful at all or not powerful enough. That is, Not omnipotent.

The Universe is not fine tuned for us or for life on earth. We and all living organisms or all life on earth are fine tuned for the Universe. Notice that we are trying to develop technology all the time that would protect us from the harsh environment, just because it is not perfectly modified to suit us, to not harm us in any way, or to not make us suffer at all. If the universe was fine tuned for us we would be able to live in any kind of environment, at least somewhere or in some part of the environment, or at least in some kind of environment that exists on earth without any technology, without there being any degree of suffering to humans or to any living organism at all. This is not the case. It is so hard to survive on your own, with other people, or with a group of people in a harsh environment (without any kind of technology at all). This cannot be called a place that was made just for us or just to fit people like us. Also, countless other life forms suffer in that same environment that is best suited for them. On the other hand, there are countless extinct species that show how life was not so adapted, so adjusted, or so fine tuned to accommodate for them, to fit them, or to suit their survival and growth. That is aside from this meaning that God was just experimenting or entertaining himself with creating all those species to annihilate, exterminate, wipe out, or make them go extinct in the end, for no gain from that or for no benefit from that on how the environment would be perfect for the survival of all the current living species on earth.

The following is an exempt from an article made by Richard M. Smith as a review or response to a book called “Where the conflict really lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism” and this part of that article below refutes the fine tuning argument.

“Fine-tuning

Plantinga also invokes a ‘fine-tuning’ design argument, one which claims that the universe’s basic constants are so narrowly tailored to allow life that the only plausible explanation is divine design. But is all of that true? First, we don’t even know that the physical constants can be varied: they may be fixed to their values by more fundamental properties. Second, we don’t know that our universe is really that special. Universes with different fundamental constants could be unusual and interesting in different ways. Life could arise through different chemistries or under different physical laws. Physicist Victor Stenger modeled a wide range of possible constants, and many variations met a key prerequisite for life—star lifetimes long enough to generate high nuclear-weight elements.[10]

Third, there may be an overarching mechanism for producing many separate universes or regions with varying laws. Physicist Paul Davies says that “some version of a multiverse is reasonable given the current world view of physics.”[11] Plantinga strangely argues that even so, why our particular universe has life-friendly constants still requires explanation. But if you’re in a bridge tournament so large that it includes all possible deals, then it’s no longer unusual that some people are dealt amazing hands. Once you add to this that we could only be in universes that are life-friendly, no further explanation is needed.[12]

But let us grant for the sake of argument that there is only one universe, the constants can vary widely, and our universe is the only vaguely interesting outcome of those variations. Even so, a very unlikely outcome does not support the inference that our universe’s features are due to some nonrandom process like design.[13] If a large number of outcomes is possible and any one of them is unlikely, then maybe our particular unlikely event simply happened. Then again, maybe it wasn’t as unlikely as we think. Cosmologist Stephen Hawking writes: “[T]he present state of the universe could have arisen from quite a large number of different initial configurations…. [which] shows that the initial state of the part of the universe that we inhabit did not have to be chosen with great care.”[14] And how plausible is Plantinga’s preferred alternative—that an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, immaterial, immanent being simply existed from all time, no explanation necessary? For his part, after mounting a defense that does not address the key objections adequately, Plantinga nonetheless concludes that he can’t put much weight on the fine-tuning argument.” ~ Alvin Plantinga Can’t Say That, Can He?
A Review of Where the Conflict Really Lies (2016) by Richard M. Smith