"First off Paul, I appreciate your honesty that the universe is no more fines tuned for the existence of life as it fine tuned for the existence of tables."
You seem to be missing a very basic point. Under the fine-tuning argument, the improbable conditions that must exist involve the laws of nature, their various constants, and initial conditions of the universe. For the universe to be fine-tuned it is not necessary to believe that these factors would inevitably lead to some particular end product.
Lets start with William Craig's obsevation:
""What is meant by "fine-tuning"? The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants, such as the gravitational constant, whose values are independent of the laws themselves; moreover, there are certain arbitrary quantities which are simply put in as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the initial low entropy condition of the universe. By "fine-tuning" one means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values."
One could make an equally valid statement by replacing in this definition of fine tuning the word "life" with the word "table" and it would be equally true statement. Thus one could say: "By "fine-tuning" one means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe table-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of table-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values."
Why is this second statement also true? Because for a universe to be "table-permitting", the forces of contraction and the forces of expansion in the universe would still have to be exquisitely balanced so that the universe did not quickly collapse soon after it came into existence or expand so rapidly that matter was too dispersed for stars and planets to form. Similarly, for heavier elements to exist that are necessary to form a table, the strong and weak nuclear forces have to be exquisitely balanced. This fine-tuned balance is equally required for life to exist or for tables to exist.
One could easily restate the initial premise of the fine-tuning argument to state that "the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life or for that matter, the existence of any ordinary, physical object such as a table." Generally, the argument is not stated that way because it is obvious that if the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life, that fact necessarily encompasses the fact that it is also fine-tuned for the existence of tables. I think that Dr. Craig or Dr. Collins would be willing to reformulate their argument, just for you, if that helps. Most others would say "duh", if they included my proposed addition to the their first premise. There is no need to state the obvious.
"More importantly you alleged that fine tuning is scientifically verifiable statement. As I said that depends upon an assumption, an assumption that is easy to demonstrate is false."
Since I am not a theoretical physicist who is familiar with all of the mathematics that leads theoretical physicists to conclude that the Universe is fine-tuned, I must appeal to authority. I think my authorities are quite strong when Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, as well as Steven Hawkings and Freemon Dyson, probably the two most eminent living physicists, acknowledge the existence of fine-tuning.
For example, Stephen Hawkings observes:
"*“It is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seems oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe-and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor made to support us and if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration…The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements- especially carbon could be produced and remain stable…Even that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space.”
*“(At the atomic level) if protons were just 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms, again of course making all life impossible…(So) most of the…laws of nature appear fine tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amount, the universe would be…unsuitable for the development of life…The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine tuned.”
Or as Stephen Hawkins observes elsewhere:
"Why did the universe start out with so nearly critical rate of expansion that separates that models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. On the other hand, if the rate of expansion had been greater by even one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form."
Stephen Hawkins statement only would lead me to doubt that your statement that the assumptions that lead Hawkins to believe the universe is finely tuned involve assumptions "that is easy to demonstrate is false."