God is usually described as perfect in every possible aspect. If just one of these aspects were flawed by any margin then god would not be perfect. It is extremely unlikely that all of god's attributes would be exactly as they are by chance. Therefore god appears fine tuned for perfection and must have a fine tuner.

Thoughts?

God is defined, not described

No to this part. Appearing fine-tuned does not imply the presence of a fine-tuner.

I'm a bit confused; The anthropic principle is generally an argument to show why appearance of finetuning is implied by merely the act of observing...not an argument that implies a finetuner?

"It is unlikely X would ever observe a universe where X couldn't exist."

For some reason this thing has been butchered quite badly on this board. If I am not mistaken a few prominent theists posters has dubbed it an "explanation" and argued against it quite aggressively, which to me is just inane.

If I stand on a mountain, then by being able to observe this it seems unlikely that the act of standing on a mountain leads to my non-existence. That doesn't mean that "standing on this mountain does not lead to my non-existence" is somehow an explanation as to why the hell I'm standing on a mountain.

Proponents of the anthropic argument would disagree with you.

Are we talking about the teleological argument or the anthropic principle...? The anthropic principle is widely used by physicists (though maybe more as a "duh" than an "aha" thing) afaik...

Well, I disagree. If I recall correctly you are also an atheist? An argument we Atheists make for the existence of the universe and mankind is "it's extremely unlikely and purely coincidental". But yet, we do exist.

If, hypothetically there truly is a God and it's accurately proven (don't know how but anyway ) . I would find it extremely reasonable that the perfection of God could be entirely coincidental. (Blind Watchmaker style)
For all we know the universe could not only be infinite, but there could also be an infinite amount of universes, and we are one of the lucky ones to have a purely coincidental perfect God. (still hypothetically)

I'm sure you feel somewhat the same way if you're an atheist, I assume this question is towards God believers.

Unless the fine tuning is in universe from then its required...

I am atheist and wish not to be included in your "we Atheists", tyvm. We have no idea how likely or how coincidental the universe and mankind are. For all we know, our notion of the universe is completely ordinary and commonplace, and the probability of higher life forms in any given universe (or manifestation of it) approaches 1.

Apologies, I should've said one of the more common POVs for atheists as discribed in the blind watchmaker

The attributes of God were definitely not caused by chance. They were not caused by anything, since God has always existed.

Accepted, but worth pointing out that it's still an ill-founded POV. Any reference to likelihood based on a single replication is sure to be nonsensical, whatever the subject may be.

This is equivalent to your argument.

Also, all this discussion of cause, existence, and "before" is probably nonsensical given human mind's inability to deal with complex ideas beyond our notions of matter, space, time, and existence. But, you probably have all the answers on these issues anyway since some dudes 2000 years ago graciously solved all the unknowns in the universe and wrote it down in cryptic and violent books.

That's correct. Well done.

This would only be valid if God could in fact be different. If God can be only one way, then you would not need an explanation of why he was that way as he would be that way by necessity.

Which is another way of admitting the argument is utterly vacuous and lacks any meaning.

I know, that last part was a bit overboard, but my opinion is that the blind watchmaker theory of evolution could also be applied to the existence of the universe. Now if I would go by my own personal belief, and there was real evidence that there was a God, I wouldn't find it unreasonable that the blind watchmaker theory also applies for the creating of that God. That is why I don't really agree with OP's statement (this is all personal obv)

I gotcha. Makes sense.

Your argument claims that an eternal being attributes are or could be a matter of happenstance which is nonsensical.

If I have a die that has shown a 6 for eternity....I know that die has never been rolled.

Your argument that God is an eternal being not subject to chance is no more supported than saying "universes" have always been around in one form or another and this existence is not a product of chance.

No, actually, I will correct myself. The argument for God isn't "no more supported" it is "orders of magnitude less supported" because it involves a host of other insupportable claims as well.

The OP's argument makes the assumption that a perfect God exists. Now I could be wrong but I figured he was talking about the eternally perfect O3 God most people believe in.

Since it is his assumption you are wrong to conclude it is my argument. I am merely showing that his argument is flawed given his own assumptions(as I understand them). I am not making any argument myself so you can put your strawman away.

When someone says the earth must be created by God becuase it is so perfectly fined tuned for human life, you can shoot that argument down by pointing to the emergent process of evolution. You can make a credible claim that it isn't earth that is fine tuned to life....it is life that is fine-tuned to earth.

However you can't do that when someone points to the fine-tunedness of the universe. There is no emergent process that you can point too. You can only assume such a process exists but you have absolutely 0 evidence that it does.

Or you can ask, the universe is fine-tuned for what exactly?

And the OP's point is that in response to the red herring you bring up in your second paragraph, one could just as easily point to the fine-tunedness of God. (And likewise, as you should admit, there is no emergent process that you can point to, you can only assume that such a process exists or it is unnecessary.) Thanks for perfectly illustrating his point.

i love how Concerto gets really snarky when called out on his logical failures.

see previous instance: