The not-so-fine tuning argument.

[Jehanne]

@Jehanne

But isn't the point of those advancing the fine tuning argument precisely that they can say a priori that (simply speaking) only one of those outcomes is compatible with life, e.g. that life = 100 times heads? Then it is irrelevant that all possibilities add up to a probability of 1. I'm not saying I buy the ft argument, just that the lotto fallacy alone doesn't appear to be sufficient to refute it unless you also argue that all outcomes are compatible with some form of observer

Has been pointed out, physicists do not know that the constants of nature are free to vary.  Just because one can construct a mathematical model does not mean that Nature confirms itself to such a model; alternative models of gravitation exist to General Relativity that do not predict the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit.  And, of course, Newtonian mechanics is mathematically complete yet fundamental flawed.  Ultimately, GR will likely give way to something more deeper, as a "singularity" (infinite curvature) just does not make sense, physically.

And, even if the constants can vary, we still do not know the sample space that we are dealing with, and so, cannot possibly compute any objective probabilities.  As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics."  Christian theism was wrong about the orbits of the planets ("perfect circles") and it took Kepler nearly a decade and hundreds of pages of manuscripts to overcome that bias.