The anthropic principle says we the universe must be live supporting, the question we are trying to answer is: is why is it live supporting?

There are two separate probability calculations for the two possible reasons it is live supporting:

[1] The first is probability that the universe supports life by accident. The evidence we have here (from science) is that it is a billion to one shot that it happened by accident.

[2] The second is the probability that a willing fine tuner exists to explain the fine tuning. This is derived from an independent set of evidence/arguments (first cause argument etc...). Say this is 1%.

To answer why the universe is fine tuned, we have to choose the mostly likely explanation from the above two.

1 and 2 are not related in anyway. They are different calculations based on different evidence.

I see you've ignored my proof, and are just repeating the same erroneous claims.

The anthropic principle says we the universe must be live supporting, the question we are trying to answer is: is why is it live supporting? — Devans99

That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. The neutral question is: is the universe designed for life, or is life an unintended consequence of the way the universe happen to be?

[1] The first is probability that the universe supports life by accident. The evidence we have here (from science) is that it is a billion to one shot that it happened by accident. — Devans99

This does not correctly capture the naturalist position. If naturalism (i.e. there is no God that wants to create life) is true, life is nothing special - it is nothing more than a unique or rare characteristic of a universe whose properties are the product of randomness. By wording it as you did, you are treating life as a design objective.

The one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf (OEHD) analogy captures the error

That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. — Relativist

There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist.

Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes; he is only interested in life supporting universe, so that means only a life supporting universe is unique for God - God does not care about the other attributes of the universe, he only cares about if it is life supporting.

So there is a chance of God's existence and he wants a life supporting universe. That chance is much larger than the universe being life supporting by accident.

There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist. — Devans99

Indeed there is, just as there's a distinct chance the lottery was rigged for the specific characteristics of the winner. But the mere fact that someone with those characteristics has won doesn't make it any more likely.

The epistimic probability that there's a reason is identical to the probability that God exists:
P(there is a reason) = P(G)
P(there is no reason) = 1-P(G)

You're ignoring, or refusing to think through this rigorously.

Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes — Devans99

...If and only if there is a God. So:
P(winner is not unique in God's eyes) = P(G)

Examine the math I gave you. You aren't thinking it through completely. Again, the starting point is:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(N) = 1-P(G) = prior probability there is no such God

You have provided no basis for increasing P(G) because all you have done is to discuss the implications of God's existence. This doesn't change the probability.

Indeed there is, just as there's a distinct chance the lottery was rigged for the specific characteristics of the winner. But the mere fact that someone with those characteristics has won doesn't make it any more likely. — Relativist

If a one eyed dwarf has won a lottery at a billion to 1 and we have reason to suspect is rigged for one eyed dwarfs, the we should conclude the most likely explanation is that it was rigged for one eye dwarfs.

I showed you how the math works out: a complete analysis of the alleged "fine tuning" does not increase the epistemic probability that God exists. — Relativist

But again this is like a murder mystery who done it. You have to work out the most likely reason that the universe supports life. God is more likely than a fluke.

If a one eyed dwarf has won a lottery at a billion to 1 and we have reason to suspect is rigged for one eyed dwarfs, the we should conclude the most likely explanation is that it was rigged for one eye dwarfs. — Devans99

Sure, but the mere fact that he won is not such a reason. There's something unique about every possible winner, so merely being unique is irrelevant; it's not a reason to suspect rigging. As I noted, EVERY POSSIBLE WINNER is unique, so uniqueness alone is not suspicious (nor is it a "fluke").

But again this is like a murder mystery who done it. You have to work out the most likely reason that the universe supports life. God is more likely than a fluke. — Devans99

There is no "fluke" if the universe is a product of random chance. You are only considering the implications of God's existence. An implication doesn't constitute additional evidence, so it does add to the probability of God:
:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(there is a reason the universe supports life) = P(G)
There's no basis for considering #2 more probable.

You referenced a "fluke" but this is a red herring. When a lottery winner happens to be a OEHD, this does not constitute a "fluke" because he had the same chance of winning as everyone else. If there were two consecutive lotteries, and a OEHD won both - THAT would be a fluke. But when there's a single random event, and every possible outcome is unique, there can be no fluke.

There's something unique about every possible winner — Relativist

Not from God's perspective.

If there were two consecutive lotteries, and a OEHD won both - THAT would be a fluke. But when there's a single random event, and every possible outcome is unique, there can be no fluke. — Relativist

But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants:

- Chances of gravity being right strength
- Chance universe expanding at right rate
- Mass of up quark must be right
- Etc...

So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all.

There's something unique about every possible winner — Relativist
Not from God's perspecti"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism, just like "the universe was designed for life" and "life is special" are implications of God existing. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism. ve. — Devans99

That is true only if there is a God. This implication of God existing doesn't make it any more likely that God exists.

"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism.

But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants: — Devans99

A random set of constants does not entail a coincidence, and the unintended consequence of life eventually emerging can't be considered a coincidence. It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective.

So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all. — Devans99

That is analogous to 20 different universes each having life. You've forgotten that the "universe lottery" consists of randomly picking a SET of values. The number of sets of values corresponds to the number of entries in the universe lottery.

It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective. — Relativist

But bearing in mind all the other evidence in favour of God then there is a high probability that a design objective exists. This is evidence independent of the separate scientific evidence for fine tuning.

Whereas we have no independent evidence in favour of naturalism; there are no 'proofs of no God' for example. All we know about naturalism is it is a billion to one shot - that is the whole of the evidence for naturalism.

But bearing in mind all the other evidence in favour of God then there is a high probability that a design objective exists. This is evidence independent of the separate scientific evidence for fine tuning. — Devans99

Irrelevant, because this just affects the prior probability of God. "Fine Tuning" considerations do not increase that probability. If the prior probability of God is 10%, the final probability is also 10%. If the prior probability is 90%, the final probability is still 90%.

So understand that I'm not claiming the FTA makes a case for naturalism, I'm just pointing out that it has zero relevance to the question of God's existence. You need to rely on those other arguments to support your belief. Some are better than others, but the FTA is the worst of all.

Whereas we have no independent evidence in favour of naturalism; there are no 'proofs of no God' for example. All we know about naturalism is it is a billion to one shot - that is the whole of the evidence for naturalism. — Devans99

The "case" for naturalism is simply this: P(naturalism) = 1 - P(God).

I propose that if you want to make a case for God, it's time to move onto a better argument than FTA. If you want to do that, I propose starting another thread.

I don't agree with what you are saying on FTA but I don't want to keep going over the same old ground again.

Welcome any comments of the following argument for God:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5832/argument-from-equilibrium

- I wish you had actually gone over the detailed ground I laid, but so be it. I've responded to the other thread.

The Anthropic principle

The universe (its properties: physical constants & laws) is such that life is possible + actual.

It's half-a-refutation of the Copernican Principle (Nothing special about earth, life, the universe. Vide the Mediocrity Principle); at the very least earth, life, the universe is privileged.

Why? The natural question. Prompts a search for the reason for the special status of our universe (life-friendly).

One response: The multiverse. A large number of universes exist (every possible value for physical constants and every possible variation in laws exist as different universes). In other words, we (humans, you and I) just got lucky, that's all. In other words, there's nothing at all special about this universe in which we exist.