In what way would "fine-tuning" be evidence for a creator? With creationist logic, complexity can only come from even greater complexity. Holding that thesis one has lost the right to demand for a complex explanation for the universe, since this undefined creator must be uttely more complex. Besides, the main thesis is false by empirics. The rise of complexity is perfectly well explaind by unintelligent natural processes such as biological evolution, self-organisation, self-replication and so on.
Obviously square cirlces cannot exist, but logically disproving the self-contradictory judeo-christian god is not the the same as disproving a creator of the universe. If a scientist created a universe in a lab, and designed that universe to have certain characteristics, such as certain physical constants for the purpose of creating black holes or supporting life or for some other reason, then that scientist would be the creator for that universe. In a sense, she would be the god of that universe, although far from omnipotent or even able to interact with it beyong creating it. If you don't want to call such a hypothetical creator a "god," then I guess you can consider me an atheist, but "deist" seems a better fit to me.
Also, life-permitting physical constants are to expect if everything happened naturally. If we observed constants that didn't permit life, it would be time to incorporate a bunch of gods (even a bad engineer can produce stuff that hold in hostile conditions), but this is not the case.
If one is that lazy as to recede to an undetectable creator that does not need an explanation and exists "by necessity" it is by Occhams razor more legitimate to argue that the universe itself exists by necessity. If the universe didn't exist, we would not be here to notice it. Since we in fact are here to notice it, the universe exists by necessity.
(1) False dilemma between theleology and blind chance. Regulary and deteministic natural processes. (2) a) IC can evolve naturally (with Behes own definition), b) None of the ID-creationist's examples are IC and c) IC is mostly an argument from ignorance anyway.
Having said that, I am a weak deist, an agnostic, and I fully concede that my belief is not knowledge. The fine-tuned universe observation (as I understand it) and the irreducable complexity issue only indicates a probabiIityof a creator that is not blind chance. It isn't possible for us to gain absolute knowledge through empirical observation, because we are not omnicient.There is no way to know if any truth holds in all times and in all places, unless we can observe all places at all times.
Absolute knowlege can ONLY be attained through logic.
Are you absolutely sure?
Logic has to hold at all times and in every instance because otherwise it is not logic. By applying logic, we can know that there must be absolute truth because both the statements "there is no absolute truth" and "ther IS absolute truth" are absolute statements, but the former is self-contractory (like a square circle). So we can know that there either is a creator or that there isn't one, but not which of those two statements is correct. We DO know that there is not both a creator and no creator.
The old analytic/synthetic-dichotomy still haunts us. How would you justify the laws of logic? Fundamentally, do we not hold them valid inductively through perception and cognition?
In that sense, we are all agnostics and we are merely arguing over probabilities.
I guess that makes us agnostics over that statement as well then.
"When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her."
- Oscar Wilde