Why the fine tuning argument is a pile of shit

[Alex K]

But you can look at the constants in our current laws of nature and observe that changing some of them just a little would result in a quite structureless universe.

But are there not meant to be a literally infinite number of universes? Eventually one would have the ideal laws to allow conditions to form.

That is purely speculative from a physics standpoint, and if you use that against apologists they will therefore likely slap you in the face with it and accuse you of making even more assumptions than they.

I still think that it is a valid argument to shoot them down on yet another level, but one has to be a bit careful how one phrases it.

I would put it like this: several independent lines of thought in modern physics now suggest that there might be a multiverse with different laws of nature in each. They are the conundrum of quantum state collapse (leading to the many worlds scenario under mild assumptiond), eternal inflation and the superstring landscape. These scenarios were nit invented to explain fine tuning, but they provide a perfectly nice framework in which anthropic selection of universes can occur. This provided us with a Godless explanation of apparent fine tuning which, while speculative, is informed and borne out of the best current science, and is therefore more likely to be true than any random hypothesis without such a foundation. In the very least, the God hypothesis is not without alternatives.

And again, this is all assuming for the sake of argument that A. there is real fine tuning and B. fine tuning -> God is even a valid argument.