A fined tuned argument.....Heywood style.

[Heywood]

Negative, If the probability of D is one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion it is for all practical purposes 0.

And how did you determine the probability of 'D' again? Please don't tell me by applying a thought experiment in which the universal other constants could have varied widely and have no relationship to each , because we definitely don't know that's the case. It's just an assumption. How did you eliminate the possibility that it's necessity, not chance? How did you eliminate the possibility that the actual ranges of values are very narrow?

D assumes the constants are not brute facts...that is they could have varied widely.

E assumes they could not vary widely....that they are brute facts.

For the most part your criticism fails because I do consider both situations. If you want to know why I reject both....see the OP.

How do I know its not a narrow range? Physics suggests it is not and that in fact the range is quite large. I don't know what else to tell you. Should I not rely on physics here?

---

You are thinking this backwards Heywood, life and all the objects that exist are made possible to exist as they are, because these constants as you call them were already in place, not that they were made to make our universe possible.

It's like looking at a glass of water and claim the water was perfectly designed to fit the glass

Negative LastPoet.

Its more like looking at a glass and claiming it was perfectly designed to hold water.