No fine -tuning,no absolute beginning

    Willaim  Lane  Craig  tries to find  divine intent,eventhough as Strato notes, none exists to  lie behind natural phenomena. The fine-tuning and probablility arguments just flaunt reduced animism = theism as without that intent, theism is just that and thus, no more realistic than full animism or polytheism.Necessity holds as Leucippus notes.  
       He presumes that we just has to evolve as those parameters favour that. Why, he has matters inverted when the conditions that  made us evolve depended on necessity,including randomness. No divine intent favored the  flowering plants, the warming periods, the demise of the dinosaurs and mutations that led to us. We were thus not the desired outcomes that Carneades' atelic argument notes as that begged question.
       The inversion rules: the paramaters were not made for us but instead we  evolved as they worked their way. As the late Douglas Adams poses the question : does a puddle form, because of intent  as the puddle would think or didit just  happen,because of a pot hole in a road and rain? 
    No absolute origination of the Multiverse happened but instead a series of Big Transformations- Big Bangs- of the eteranl  quantum fields in accordance with the description- law- of the conservation of energy.
     He claims that why, there had to be a choice for our Universe to happen but that is agains that reduced animism at work that Lamberth's reduced animism argument explains. That personal explanation is nor more than God did it: did He do it by the magic of let it be? He and other theists should give evidence of how He does it instead of favoring animism. That explanation means nothing.

Lawrence Krauss vs. William Lane Craig – Pharyngula

Lawrence Krauss vs. William Lane Craig – Pharyngula