The not-so-fine tuning argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Rhythm,
but isn't that simply the anthropic principle rather than the lottery fallacy? How exactly does the latter play a role here?

The lotto fallacy responds to the argument from probability by reference to ft - in itself it's enough to handle that argument.  The anthropic principle demonstrates, further, that the question -itself- is malformed and so, uninformative. That life exists, that we exist, that our environment supports us, is not some great profundity to be answered by improbability or by magic. Its a brute observation, and one that;s required for there to even -be- such an observation. You don't need to know anything about the cosmological constants, or ft, to know that. A "no shit, and?" kind of question leading nowhere else or to any other conclusion which bares no relevance to those other things discussed in and of itself.

Essentially, chasing our tales by inconsistently applying logic or reason against the advice of it's own standards in the absence of any valid means of inference. We could plug true or sound propositions into that all day long and we'd still have no reason to trust our conclusions. It's the very definition of inanity.