firstly i would say that you are making the assumption that such a creator is omnipotent - when this may not be the case at all. I think we might be talking about two different things here - you are arguing against the theists standpoint whereas I am talking about things from a much more scientific point of view.
Well yes, but theists are the ones who most often use this argument, and they do assert the existence of an omnipotent theistic god. And arguing against a completely amorphous, deistic god really isn't something that anyone can do; it's not really a falsifiable hypothesis.
Again, I agree. But the fact still remains that if any of a number of these constants were changed even slightly then the stars and even the universe itself would not exist - this is a scientific argument - nothing more, nothing less. It is purely scientific problems like this that has prompted eminent leading physicists such as Sir Martin Rees (Prof. at Cambridge Univ. and Astronomer Royal) to propose something as radical and scientifically untestable as Multiverse theory (of course although something may not be scientfically testable this does not necessarily mean it is not possible).
Well, I'm no physicist, but I'm skeptical about whether or not laws and constants have to be precisely what they are in order for a universe or stars to exist. We can only really speak within the scope of our own universe, and so I therefore think it's impossible to definitively know what kind of life-permitting configurations are possible in others.
It may be that everything in this universe works according to the laws and constants and order within it, and so it therefore follows that if any of those things were to change, then everything that was contingent upon that law or constant that changed would cease to exist. But I fail to see how we can possibly say what could and could not happen in another universe with very different order, laws and constants.
The multiverse hypothesis is not the only possible explanation being considered, but nevertheless it is possible. We know that at least this universe exists, and if it does then it's not unlikely that others might exist as well.
...but what I personally would argue for the existence of an intelligent designer (who may or may not be omnipotent) is that although you're right that the physical laws and constants do not necessarily need to be exactly as they are for a life permitting universe to exist if God was indeed omnipotent, they do still happen to appear to be fine tuned for life to exist within our own universe. It is possible that there exists some scientific mechanism for this apparent fine tuning or it could have been chance (i.e multiverse), but it's also certainly possible that an intelligent designer decided to create a universe dependent on precise mathematical constants and laws to allow the formation of life - simply because he/she/it chose to do it in this manner. What do you think?
Well, it's always a possibility that a god created the universe. My original argument didn't aim to refute that possibility at all. It was simply a refutation of the fine-tuning argument used by theists.
Topic: Debunk a theists argument thread, add yours below.