Apolotetics misusing philosophy?

[Nuda900]

If God set things up initially so that he had to then fine tune these arbitrary parameters he made...

And then the best he could then do is a universe which is barely inhabitable by the very beings it was designed for, I'd say he was the worst designer ever. He sabotaged his own design possibilities before even getting to the fine tune section.

Or did someone else set up the first stage?

Also, unlikely clearly doesn't equal impossible, nor does it point to any other explanation explicitly. If things were different, they would be different. No shit, Sherlock.

For one....it is not really a surprise that we would find ourselves in a universe that we can live in. I would guess the argument is about the fact that very small changes would results in a universe that does not support our kind of life. If that is true....indeed....kind of a bad design. It's like building a skyscraper and use the point of a pencil as the foundation.

And from the theist point of view: the fine tuning does not exist, you would expect us to exist not matter what the universe looks like. Or you would have to how god is somehow bound by physical law.

---

Yet somehow, a certain subset of us feels that this is a great profundity which needs be accounted for, and further......that god, specifically, is the only sufficient explanation.

Well, this is the strange stuff for me: on theism one does not need to account for it.  Only on naturalism one requires the universe to be as it is in order for us to exist. I can't understand that I have not been able to explain this to any theist.

They tend to explain it through with the lottery example. How likely is it to win the lottery if your change is this small (kind of strange since we clearly did win something it that lottery)? The best response I had so far is: on theism the lottery does not exist, it makes not sense to talk about the chance of winning it.