Consider Dr. Craig's formulation of the argument from "fine tuning:"

1.) The fine tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.

2.) The fine tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity.

C.) Therefore, the fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

Right? Simple enough.

Consider the first premise:

This premise is a logical fork, which means that it is true if and only if the options presented actually do span the entire space of possibilities in question. Specifically, we can say, given a proposition P in the form "A, B, or C" that P is true iff A = complement (C union B), B = complement (A union C), and C = complement (A union B).

Now, "design," of course, is a not a single explanation or hypothesis. It's a category of hypotheses--Craig makes this quite clear. It covers not only some vague Theistic God, but the Christian God in particular, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, or even extra-dimensional alien programmers. Fortunately, all of these hypotheses are easy to pick out by having one stipulated positive characteristic: a designer of the universe.

"Necessity" actually does pick out a particular hypothesis, and is an interesting and unique case. Set that one aside for a moment.

"Chance" then, by definition, is simply "anything that isn't design or necessity." Again, this is not a single hypothesis. It's a huge space of hypotheses, and its contents are actually very hard to pick out. There is no particular set of positive characteristics that lands a hypothesis in the "chance" category. Rather, it really is just the catch-all category for everything that isn't clearly a "design" hypothesis or the one single "necessity" hypothesis.

In order to claim that p2 is true, then, the interlocutor here must demonstrate that *none* of the hypotheses in the "chance" space are true.

And, unfortunately, *no* presentation of this argument even *tries* to accomplish this feat. Certainly, nothing Craig offers in support of p2 even approaches such a demonstration.

Hence, we can say, categorically, that Craig has failed to support premise 2.

And it will remain that way until someone actually takes a real stab at excluding *every* hypothesis in that "chance" category.

Does anyone here care to try? Or is it safe to conclude that no-one here is justified in affirming Craig's FT argument?