As I have told you. WLC is a classical apologist. Generally, here is what that means. He feels that the proper approach to apologetics is this. You can't presuppose God exists because that would be circular reasoning. You must develop a case that he does exist. That means you have to provide, support and defend good arguments and reasons that he does exist. The FTA is just one argument of many. So with that spoon fed context lets examine YOUR presuppositions......
WCL tells us right up that the Universe needs a creator,
No he does not. This particular argument CONCLUDES that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning we observe. There is no assumption of a creator. This argument is not arguing FROM a creator. It is arguing FOR the best explanation of the observed fine-tuning.
that fine tuning is not a possibility with naturalism
That is a debatable position to hold. You offered the objection of a multiverse to support that chance is the better explanation. So make your case. The quote you had of WLC regarding this, was only his conclusion that the multiverse does not point to a natural cause. So when you make your case please show me where he reasoning for that conclusion was wrong.
Many others have levied this objection and WLC has addressed this objection as you have quoted. So against his reasoning why do you still hold that chance is the better explanation. You can't just presuppose your position (post 33). Convince me. Show me where his reasoning against the multiverse is wrong and therefore chance is the better option. Here is your "CHANCE" on the line.
Yes there are strawmen. A lot of apologisms are not proofs or evidence,
Then your part is to defeat the argument not just presuppose your position. Defend your position.
Trying to shift burden of proof while not actually proving anything themselves all too often. And of course, a lot of these apolgists use a lot of slippery rhetoric and weasel words to avoid being pinned down. It's part of the game.
Very fair claim.
Make your case for that here with the FTA.
Just asserting your general concern does nothing. Make your case.
The FTA is the heart of WCL's argument,
You just said the argument is at the heart of the argument. That does not make sense. I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you meant that the FTA is at the heart of his case.
And to that...... I would say its more like Exhibit C.
The FTA is the heart of WCL's argument, but obfuscated by other rhetorical ploys he uses.
Again show me where. It's all part of the debate. I can say the same of your position just as easily. But when I feel that has occurred I point it out and provide reasons for my objections. Classic example...Lawrence Krauss' equivocation of nothing.
Make your case.
Basically underneath it all is the claim God created all de nova,
NO
That is what the cumulative set of arguments are trying to prove, not assume. This is classical apologetics not presuppositional. So..............
What is wrong with trying to provide evidence for your point?
not that there is a natural world that exists along side God, not created or controlled by God. We all know this.
You are the one acting like a presuppositionalist....."We all know this." Make your case.
Multi-Universe is the argument that demonstrates it is logically possible to have a fine tuned Universe without God. So that has to be undermined by the theists such as WCL.
No.
The multiverse is not an argument. It is a theoretical cosmological model that is often offered as an objection to suggest that chance is the better explanation of the observed fine-tuning.
so...............
So that has to be undermined by the theists such as WCL.
No.
It is debated and the conclusions weighed.
Are you suggesting that just because you are objecting to the FTA with the multiverse theory, therefore the FTA fails without debate?
Of course he needs to address the objection. That's how debates work. You are presupposing that your objection is better. I don't buy it, so make your case.
There is a difference between a theology and a defense. Unable to directly prove existence of God, the apologists need to undermine naturalism. This is what it is all about.
No.
An argument is not presupposed as fact so it must be supported and defended.
Similarly.....
An objection is not presupposed as fact so it needs to be supported and defended.
That is what it is all about.
Seriously yours is the approach that is presuppositional.
The organizing principle here is that God created all, plans all, and that naturalism is not true.
Again no.
That is the debate.
You are just presupposing your position and I'm asking you to support and defend it.
Sorry if that seems too negative.
Not everything can be so Cheery Charlie.