An atheist asserts that the question "who created the universe" is silly, childish, and not worthy of actual debate, being akin to asking, “what type of purple fish is often found living in trees?” How is this illogical, a false analogy...?

 An atheist asserts that the question "who created the universe" is silly, childish, and not worthy of actual debate, being akin to asking, “what type of purple fish is often found living in trees?” How is this illogical, a false analogy in the light of manifest universe evidencing that it is finely tuned for life against astronomical odds?

Equating “Who created the universe?” with “What kind of purple fish lives in trees?” is illogical because the two questions have completely different epistemic status: one arises naturally from widely accepted empirical facts; the other is about an admitted fantasy. Fine‑tuning makes that contrast especially sharp.wikipedia+1

Why the analogy fails

• A “purple fish in trees” is known to be biologically impossible and contrary to all observation; the question presupposes entities we have zero evidence for and that conflict with what we know about fish and trees.wikipedia

• By contrast, the universe is an actually existing entity whose fundamental constants, initial conditions, and laws appear to fall into extremely narrow life‑permitting ranges (e.g., the cosmological constant fine‑tuned to about 1 part in $10^{120}$).firstthingsyoutubewikipedia

Thus:

• Asking “Who (or what) explains the existence and apparent fine‑tuning of the universe?” is like asking “Why does this very real, highly ordered system exist with precisely these parameters?”—a standard explanatory question in science and philosophy.plato.stanford+2

• Asking “What type of purple fish lives in trees?” is like asking “What is the diet of square circles?” The presupposition is incoherent; there is no real entity to explain.

Conflating these is a false analogy: it treats a serious explanatory question about an actual, puzzling datum (the contingent, highly structured, life‑permitting universe) as if it were a question about an admitted fiction, thereby avoiding the real issue rather than answering it.quod.lib.umich+2

Role of fine‑tuning here

• Fine‑tuning discussions note that many constants (e.g., gravitational constant, cosmological constant, strengths of forces) must lie in extremely small intervals for complex structures and life to be possible; outside those ranges, matter, stars, chemistry, and life never arise.youtubeplato.stanford+2

• That makes the universe look less like a random “whatever” and more like a system whose specific configuration stands in need of explanation—by physical necessity, chance (often via multiverse), or design.benthams.substack+2

Given that:

• Treating “Who/what explains this?” as childish is not neutral; it is a rhetorical move that assumes the explanatory question is illegitimate, precisely where the data (fine‑tuning, contingent laws, etc.) make it most pressing.plato.stanford+2

• In philosophical literature, the fine‑tuning question is explicitly called “a reasonable little question,” not a childish one, and is treated with detailed probabilistic analysis rather than dismissed with jokes about fish in trees.quod.lib.umich+1

So the atheist’s analogy is illogical because it erases the crucial difference between (a) asking for an explanation of a real, finely specified feature of reality, and (b) inventing a nonsense entity; the former is exactly what serious cosmology and philosophy of religion do, and fine‑tuning makes that explanatory question more, not less, rational to ask.firstthings+3

Thx. I often argue that "To  believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life as we kmow it, with profound intricate, elaborate complexity and extensive diversity,  can be all  a result of purely natural processes requires much faith. 

More so i submit,  than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause  (at the least),   that of a being of supreme power and intelligence being behind  the existence of energy and organization of matter, and laws regarding the same. See https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2024/09/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-god-is.html"  

How would you cogently, succinctly state this...

 .... Modern physics and biology reveal a contingent, highly structured, life‑permitting universe, where the basic “dials” of reality—the strength of gravity, the cosmological constant, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electron‑to‑proton mass ratio and many others—must fall in extraordinarily narrow ranges for stars, chemistry, and complex organisms to exist at all. A tiny change in the cosmological constant by about 1 part in $10^{120}$, or a percent‑level change in the strong nuclear force, would render life impossible by preventing stable atoms, long‑lived stars, or complex chemistry. On top of this physical fine‑tuning, life itself depends on intricate, information‑rich molecular systems—such as DNA’s digitally coded sequences and multi‑component cellular machines (often cited under “irreducible complexity,” like the bacterial flagellum)—that behave like coordinated nano‑engineering rather than random clutter.wikipedia+10

Given this cascade of precise physical conditions and biological organization, it is not epistemically “neutral” to say that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered, exquisitely bio‑friendly cosmos “just is,” the accidental by‑product of unguided processes; that is a sweeping faith‑commitment about ultimate reality. It is at least as much, and arguably more, of a faith‑step than the inference that such fine‑tuned laws, constants, and information‑packed living systems point to a First Cause—a transcendent reality of supreme power and intelligence behind the existence, structure, and life‑friendliness of the universe.plato.stanford+11

Representative fine‑tuning and design sources

You can cite any subset of these, depending on whether your audience prefers neutral, theistic, or ID‑leaning material:

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Fine‑Tuning” – technical overview of fine‑tuning and the main explanatory options (chance, necessity, design, multiverse).plato.stanford

• Fine‑tuned universe article with parameter examples (cosmological constant, strength of gravity, etc.).unm+2

• Magis Center and similar reviews summarizing specific numerical examples of fine‑tuning (gravity, strong force, cosmological constant).leightonvw+2

• Jay Richards / Discovery Institute lists of fine‑tuning parameters in cosmology and chemistry.intelligentdesign+2

• Privileged Planet–style discussions connecting cosmic, planetary, and observational “bio‑friendliness.”alta3byoutube

• Irreducible‑complexity and molecular‑information discussions (flagellum, molecular machines, specified information in DNA) from both critics and defenders, showing the live controversy.biologos+3

• Your own compilation: “Is there scientific evidence for God? Is atheism a position of faith? Yes and Yes.”pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih