Ok once again who can I know if these are evidence assumptions if I have no idea on what you mean by “evidence”?
You do know, you're just pretending you don't, and using it to obfuscate. If you have any objective evidence you'd present it for scrutiny.
What is wrong with the evidence that I have provided? What is wrong with the evidence that scholars provide?
What evidence? The term "fine tuned" is simply being subjectively interpreted by theists to mean what they want it to. You have demonstrated no objective evidence the universe needs or had a cause. Nor that it is fine tuned in the way you mean.
For example the alleged assumption that the universe is fine-tuned is grounded on the fact that if say gravity would have been a little bit stronger the universe would have collapse in a black whole (and therefore life would have not been possible)……… what is wrong with this evidence? Why wouldn’t you count this as evidence?
It is as you say an assumption, nothing more.
I am implying that my “believe” has credence based on the fact that it’s the best alternative (considering all the alternatives that have been proposed by scholars)
That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, your belief also involves unfalsifiable claims, using inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity. We know natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, we have no objective evidence that deities are even possible. We don't know the universe needed a cause, why you think you can just assume this, for a non temporal condition we know nothing about, isn't clear.
For me this is good enough to provide credence to an argument, and honestly I cant think on a better way.
I believe you, but that's your problem, not mine, as I recognise an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and know what it means.
Why isn’t this good enough for you
Obviously because I don't accept beliefs for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, and don't accept arguments that use known logic fallacies, and don't accept inexplicable magic as an explanation of anything, as that would be absurd.
Quote a logical fallacy that I have made. or apologize for your false accusation
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, and a begging the question fallacy that makes assumptions about the nature of a deity in your argument for a deity, as do all first cause arguments modified to justify theism. You have also used a special pleading fallacy, as in everything has to have a cause, but not a deity.
Then you shouldn’t reject other claims if you can’t carry the burden proof
Well there you go another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I can disbelieve something without have any alternative, to claim otherwise is irrational.
Again definitions are subjective and context dependent / what you have to do is explain what you mean by evidence in this specific context (dictionaries don’t tell you that)...........
Not to mention that dictionaries usually offer more than 1 definition
Evidence
noun
- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Objective
adjective
- (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Obviously what you want to do is keep a “safe space” for yourself / given that you haven’t define evidence you can always “scape from an argument” by claiming “no evidence”…… since you don’t define evidence nobody can move you away from your safe space.
You're now using ad hominem, focus on what is said, not who said what. Again since you asked where you have used a known logical fallacy, there is another one.
Yes, for example the KCA arguments stand doe to the truth of the 2 premises.
The premises are flawed, and it has been explained by multiple posters why.
There are many ways to refute this claim (offering an alternatives is just one of many options that you have)
I don't have to offer any alternative, and yet again this argument is irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
So one more time then, you have no objective that the universe required a cause, or that universe is fine tuned beyond a subjective claim, or that a fine tuned universe requires a cause, or that that cause must be a deity.
