Fine tuning argument assessed

[Esquilax]

I'm not sure this is a valid repudiation of the argument - although it is itself a valid point.

The theist might turn around and say to you:

"No - I am not arguing from the POV of a creator. I am arguing from random chance. I am also not arguing from the POV that there is a point to the universe, nor that we are the point. What I am saying is that the universe exists and we are a product of it (even a by-product) but the chances of that happening are 1 in 10^500. That is such an unlikely outcome that I believe the creator argument is the least unlikely answer."

The theist could say that, though to my mind it'd be a fairly weak argument; if we're already accepting that the current state of the universe could be produced by chance, then positing an additional layer to the formation of the universe, sans any evidence for that layer beyond the probability argument itself, can hardly be considered a more likely outcome, surely. With no evidence to speak of, adding an additional layer of complexity would actually make god less likely an answer than the simplest one, which is chance.

What's more likely, that a landslide happened via natural unguided means, or that an all powerful god caused the landslide to happen? That specific landslide, in that specific location, hitting that specific pattern of homes, is so unlikely an outcome, after all!