The fine-tuning argument is bullshit. It's pretty much nothing more than an updated version of Paley's design argument, simply shifts the focus from the complexity of life to the universe's ability to have life. A few responses to it come to mind:
-As a few have noted, those using/supporting this argument pretty much never know shit about how probability works.
-I'm never quite sure what any particular user of this argument means by the universe being "fine-tuned" for life. They clearly aren't using that phrase in the usual sense, because otherwise we'd see life EVERYWHERE, and it hardly has it easy here on Earth. So they have to mean something much more reserved, like "the universe allows for life to exist". But then that becomes a "So what?" moment. Clearly a universe with a particular class of phenomenon has to allow for that to be possible or elsse it wouldn't be there.
Worse, there are any number of other phenomena that are unimaginable orders of magnitude more numerous in the universe than life. Our own galaxy, of an average size, has at least 100 Billion stars. There are at least 100 Billion galaxies in the visible universe, and much of the universe is not within our sight due to our galaxy blocking them from view. So with stars alone we almost certainly outnumber living organism, and that's not even to claim fine-tuning for, say, atoms which are... everywhere.
Basically, people are trying to confirm their own biases with the fine-tuning argument. They want life to ne special, so that's how they craft the argument.
-As a few have noted, those using/supporting this argument pretty much never know shit about how probability works.
-I'm never quite sure what any particular user of this argument means by the universe being "fine-tuned" for life. They clearly aren't using that phrase in the usual sense, because otherwise we'd see life EVERYWHERE, and it hardly has it easy here on Earth. So they have to mean something much more reserved, like "the universe allows for life to exist". But then that becomes a "So what?" moment. Clearly a universe with a particular class of phenomenon has to allow for that to be possible or elsse it wouldn't be there.
Worse, there are any number of other phenomena that are unimaginable orders of magnitude more numerous in the universe than life. Our own galaxy, of an average size, has at least 100 Billion stars. There are at least 100 Billion galaxies in the visible universe, and much of the universe is not within our sight due to our galaxy blocking them from view. So with stars alone we almost certainly outnumber living organism, and that's not even to claim fine-tuning for, say, atoms which are... everywhere.
Basically, people are trying to confirm their own biases with the fine-tuning argument. They want life to ne special, so that's how they craft the argument.
