Crazy how much the abbreviation WAP has changed in meaning since then.

Good presentation. Many atheists think that arguments against theistic arguments are convincing merely because they are arguments against theism.

I think one of the main reasons some are so quick to dismiss this argument as just one of those other coincidences we see in life is that we can't internalize just how improbable it is that the conditions of the universe are such that life can exist. Despite the fact that we learned in math class that 10^60 is ten times 10^59, because we don't run into these kinds of numbers in the real world, we can't internalize it. The odds, for example, that the universe would get the low entropy needed such that life could exist by luck is 10^10^132 (a 1 with 10^132 zeroes; it's been proposed that there are around 10^80 atoms in the universe, so it would take around 10^52 universes of our size to contain those zeroes, if every zero was the size of an atom) to 1, as calculated by Roger Penrose. Even if you were to grant that maybe the entropy might be a little bit higher and still life could be supported, that won't even begin to cut into double exponent odds like 10^10^132.

Yes, but as Martin Rees notes, the other configurations all produce the same results, the same outcome. There is only one configuration like ours. So the other outcomes have a much higher probability since they can result from several configurations.

Random fact: if gravity was stronger, the sun would collapse on itself. Yet, if the gravity was weaker, the sun would dissinagrate and expand from the nuclear explosions and dissolve into putter space.....Its a perfect balance.

And it agrees with what I just said, "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

I was skeptical about fine-tuning argument, and used this (WAP) as an excuse. Thanks for helping!

Atheists claims this argument is no good and has been refuted, but I've never heard a good refutation of it or an alternative explanation of why the universe is so finely tuned for life.

@Robbie Kay That is confusing a epistemic probability with a statistical probability. Robin Collins points out we only have one quantum theory and evolutionary history but that doesn't mean they are unlikely since we have nothing to compare them with. The other configurations are equally as likely, however, this is not the came with the outcomes. A universe that cannot get past elementary particles has a higher probability since many configurations can arrive at that outcome.

It's really a miracle how I stumbled on this channel some time ago, these video's are just amazing.

I would want to see your source please. As potholer54 always says, check the source. And also, I have to admit it has been a while since I made this video and my others. Where do I specifically mention the ratio of electrons to protons?

You can see how much it pains Richard Dawkins to say a theist is right on something

Thank you, God Bless. I always appreciate the support.

Are you serious? Okay, let me repeat myself, "we have evidence A (fine tuning), and what does it infer?"

That is the thing, the fine thing argument is not just probability, but probability and what is produced.

This was a nice video. The pacing was very agreeable and it doesn't suffer from the bad logical form found in some of your other uploads. There are some points toward the end when the tone is a tad too dismissive but overall it was really informative and inviting. I'd love to see you do other videos like this.

Whew, what rigor you defend with! Seriously man, props to you. Your representation of all this is very analytic and precise. Well done.

Yeah, see my series on the ontological argument, as I dealt with the omnipotent paradox.

Again, see the links in the information section under "Advanced Study of Fine Tuning".

No, I have an entire series on this. See my series on the ontological argument. Oh and the coincidence thing. See my video, "the Teleological argument." The first link in the information section.

WAP arguments are a joke. It's like a theist saying in response to the PoE, "Well, of course there's evil in the world; if there wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about it!". It's just transparently ridiculous and would be laughed off in ANY other context, but since it is an attempt to refute a theistic argument, it is accepted with open arms as a rational argument. It's just a candid admission that one doesn't have an answer. Many atheists just try to dismiss the argument by saying that why questions are just stupid and that we shouldn't be asking them. But then, we shouldn't be doing science, and all of the arguments atheists use about how we are using the products of science apply to the "why questions are stupid" argument. It is an attempt to keep someone from satisfying their curiosity, from following the truth.

LOL, yep! I was called a bigot and stupid today on my video on "the Ontological Argument" because I debunked his claim. I haven't laughed so much all week, LOL.

See the first link in the information section.

I go through this in my series on the ontological argument. Also, no because getting a card sequence like that is bound to happen because there are several hands being dealt. This is why some postulate a multiverse.

Ahh, those were simpler times... when one could use the abbreviation WAP and not bring to mind porneia...

The purpose of design *also* doesn't mean "end-user consumer preferences." The purpose of design, and design itself, are separate questions. An F-22 is obviously designed. For what purpose? Air superiority. The universe is obviously designed. For what purpose? The teleological argument doesn't touch that issue. But its a question we should definitely ask in light of our ability to care and suffer alongside one another. You said, "We only know of one configuration [for a universe]." Again, this phraseology implies that there *are* other configurations-- i.e. speculation. We want to avoid speculative arguments. Suppose the you're in a pitch black class room. You hear only your professor's voice say, "I'm going to roll six hundred dice. If they all land on sixes, then the lights will turn on and you can look at the dice. If they don't then the lights will remain off, and you will never be able to look at them." You hear the sound of the dice roll once (so you know for a fact that the dice were rolled at least once). The lights turn on. Sure enough, you see the dice all landed on "six." Our observing the fine-tuned universe is no different. We know the dice landed perfectly because we can see the dice landed perfectly-- the lights did, after all, "turn on." Else we wouldn't even be able to observe how finely tuned our universe is. This obviously means your professor designed the dice to fall that way-- so as to make the lights turn on. Could your professor have rolled the dice hundreds of thousands of other times without you hearing him do it? Until the lights finally came on? Sure. . . Is it reasonable to resort to speculative arguments? No. Speculation violates Occum's Razor. You'd conclude (reasonably) that the professor designed the dice to fall as they did.

And can you add the link to Stenger's refutation under Barnes'? Seems appropriate in this case. arxiv(.)org(/)pdf(/)1202.4359.pdf Thank you.

See my video on the Teleological Argument, first link in the info section. I directly give the other alternative and explain why it is not satisfying. This video doesn't cover the topic, so it's dishonest as you say.

Yes, I have subscribed. He does have great videos.

The WAP is not an attempt to try to avoid finding an answer. It merely asserts that any answers you do find are of course going to be consistent with your ability to observe them. It is not possible for reality to be any other way. In the firing squad analogy, you merely find yourself alive without yet having investigated further. The surprise at being alive comes from the fact that reality as you interpret it is inconsistent with your continued existence. A lot of the curiosity comes precisely _because_ the WAP would lead you to believe that there is a natural explanation consistent with your ability to observe it, but you have not yet observed any "tuning" in your favor at all. Let's alter the analogy a bit. You are in front of a firing squad of 100 men with fully functional guns loaded with live rounds all aimed directly at your heart, each with a small chance to jam. They pull their triggers, but they all jam. If even a single gun had gone off, you would be dead. There is no evidence of outside interference. It is certainly amazing that every gun would jam, and it is difficult to contemplate, but with this knowledge, it is in no way surprising that you are alive to observe this fact. However unlikely, it happened. Is it more reasonable to assume that the guns jammed by natural chance, or to imagine that some unverifiable supernatural intelligence deliberately caused the guns to malfunction? If the WAP prevents anything, it is the need to leap to fantastical explanations just because we have observed unlikely variables that we don't fully comprehend. It doesn't discourage us from _trying_ to find answers at all.

with a deck of cards you are always going to get a 1 in 7 million hand vs 7 million other 1 in 7 million hands, while with fine tuning a life permitting universe is a 1 in 7 million vs a 6,999,999/ 7 million outcome

The problem of evil? I briefly present the free will defense in my video, "Answering objections to the ontological argument (part 1)". There will be a longer video response to it in the future, after I present the new arguments emerging out of quantum physics. It will some thing like this: vimeo . com/10785299

Thank you! Because some new atheists think they can get people to not watch theist videos by disliking them all and making people think they are terrible. An agnostic friend of mine said they are using a strategic down thumbing campaign. That is my take. It is also why I encourage people to not dislike videos, it is a stupid thing to do, expect in drastic measures.

I explain this in my series on the ontological argument, so see that. See my video, "Does God send people to hell?"

7:14 im not sure im on board with this specific bit. We do have other excutions by firing squads irl and the situation given is implied to exist in a universe where those executions have taken place. Do you have a better example?

Hmm, 4 in 7 million isn't an impossibility. 1 in 10 to the power of 50 is an impossibility. So, that card argument isn't even logical... oooh atheists.

I'm an atheist, but I want to congratulate you on one of the best presented set of arguments for design. I'm not sure that design is less likely an explanation than not design (although theism is another set of leaps altogether). Some thoughts: - it's possible that the fine-tuned constants are really mathematical or geometrical constants, like pi, but we just don't understand how they're derived from a simple GUT. I think when you say 'scientists admit there is no reason to believe' (no 'physical necessity', as you say), a more accurate statement would be 'scientists have no complete theory (yet) that explains the value of these constants". They are still looking. At first, we could not explain thunder even. give us more time. - Occam's razor is not a perfectly clear prescription, nor is there any reason to believe it is correct (as you are wont to point out for other assumptions), but if it is, I don't feel that assuming a designer God is less a violation of it than multiple universes

And this refutes the video how?

OK, this is also wrong. An argumentum ad ignorantiam is "lack of evidence to the contrary". It means that a argument is true because it hasn't been proven false (Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic). No one is saying that here. We are saying we have two valid options and which one is the best inference and makes the least ammount of assumptions? If you think there is another option then what is it?

Why is claiming ignorance when we don't actually know the answer considered bad? Yes, your argument, as far as I can tell, demonstrates that we atheists don't have an explanation which doesn't butt heads with Occam's Razor, at least not yet. We are analogous the guy surviving and saying "I don't know why this happened." And yes, you have posited a decent explanation for the improbability of the constants which, in turn, allow life to exist. However, we've no mechanism with which to substantiate supernatural explanations. A designer explanation seems sensible, that I will concede. I have no beef with deism. But historically, jumping to the conclusion that "God did it" has proven ineffective. I feel like there's something important in this conversation that hasn't been discovered yet, and maybe 200 years down the road we'll know the answer. As of yet, all proven (I use the word loosely) explanations have been natural ones. Therefore, I don't wish to put my money on any explanation, no matter how sensible, unless I can substantiate it in some convincing way. My main point is that I think we're all missing something here; maybe there's a better explanation that we just haven't thought of yet.

"Why are we here? Because of God." - Teleological "Why are we here? Because we are here." - Anthropic Principle "What in the hell are you two blathering about? When are y'all gonna contribute to something constructive?" - Alder's Razor

This is just semantics since when I say meaningful at that point I am referring to outcomes. We are speaking of what is produces as compared to what other configurations produce. If you are upset of wording, fine, but that doesn't refute what is actually being said.

What do you mean by a better job? I think you are thinking of God like an engineer but that wouldn't make sense. See my newest video, "God's Hand Was NOT Forced". You're not the first person to suggest this hypothesis, which is why I needed to make a video on it.

Very good video, it must suck to be the sort of atheist who has relied on science to dismiss God, the worm has turned. Science points at God.

I still think that "I don't know" is a better answer.

To expound. The Cosmological Constant = 3.4 x 10^-122 Change this by one part in 10^119 and the universe can't make life. The multi-verse reasoner would conclude that this means there must be at least 10^118 universes in order to have a slightly less than 10% probability of a universe which can support life coming into existence by pure chance. Keep reducing the odds by using the other constants, and they will just conclude yet more universes must exist. . . all the way to infinite.

Read the bottom of information section and stop mass commenting. You are still assuming it has to because of chance. Well, no sign of chance can be demonstrated, you are just assuming that is the case (Question Begging). The question is: does fine-tuning show intent or chance is more likely, and I address that in my first video. So you are doing exactly what you are accusing me - of assuming. You are just assuming chance instead.

atheist faith is so irrational

The appeal to a designer is an appeal to ignorance because even though you cloak it in the guise of "best possible explanation" it is in fact a conclusion based on bias towards your motive. If you lived before we knew how stars were created you would be saying that the only explanation for lights appearing in the night sky is that they must be being created by a god. It is just a matter of god of the gaps. Nothing more. "We do not know, best possible explanation is (not surprisingly) a being that can do absolutely everything I want him to be able to do."

I have other videos for that. God is not fine-tuned. See my video, "The Teleological Argument (What it really says)" where I argue why it is more likely design and see my video, "The Ontological Argument (The Introduction)" Where I define what a designer would be like.

How is it a bait and switch? Is the argument invalid or do you find it inadmissible simply because it is not in the script?

Thanks, I use Adobe After Effects for graphics, but for the most part I use Final Cut Pro 7. It is the most user friendly editing software I have found. However, Final Cut only works on a mac. If you have a PC and want to edit Adobe premier is pretty good as well. You can find a cheap version on ebay if you are looking.

I go over this in “God's Hand Was NOT Forced”. The teleological argument never says life will arise everywhere, but that it will arise. My house is finely tuned for human life, but that doesn't mean I can survive in the furnace or water heater.

Your question has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe, which is why I referred you to it. It is a bait and switch. Since you can't explain why the universe is so finely-tuned you try to argue something completely different, which has nothing to do with fine-tuning.

With that logic how do you know you are not seeing chance when purpose is there? The fine-tuning of the universe is not based on patterns by the way. Again, see my video, "The teleological argument (What is really says)". Chance is not always the default, except if you deny the principle of sufficient reason?

If you remember from the video, "boring consequences" is a result physicists speak of. See Rees quote. A boring consequence is that which produces the same result with different constants. You are interpreting boring as an appeal to emotion. but it actually stands for something physicists speak of.

Are any of them demonstrated to be variable?

My grand mother just died a few weeks ago, she said she was ready to die because she had managed to live long enough to pass on "the baton" of the family. She could see that we were all grown up, independent and doing well - that was the purpose of her life, mission accomplished. Any atheist would have this option open to them for finding meaning and purpose, you wouldn't even have to have children, you just have to care about something and work to improve it for the future...

I can't find it, send me teh link in pm

and what do you say about epicurus.

Do you have any articles? Because I have heard this before and from what I have seen it is just argued as a possibility but a full mathematical theory is never put forth. Again, I would be careful with quantum physics. The recent experiments have debunked realism and I plan on doing videos showing this soon. There is an article on this on Physics World, which is called, "Quantum Physics says Goodbye to Reality".

You are making an assertion based on incomplete knowledge. If my assertion is incomplete then so is your assertion that my assertion is incomplete. Because we are both privileged the same information you cannot say my assertion is incomplete without showing yours is the same. I am arguing the evidence we have found entails design. Do you have a better inference to draw?

I like your style and enjoy your work. I am a little curious. Below it is mentioned that you are a panentheist. When I was in seminary there was a professor there that embraced panentheism of the John Cobb school. She called it Process Theology. What is your view of Cobb? If I misread the thread my apologies.

Hey again IP, someone over at Reasonable Faith Forums posted this... www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/why-is-fta-so-popular-6031157.0.html I already responded, but how confident can we be that the odds/probability for each constant that we all hear about are close to being accurate? Are they reliable numbers?

So it came from chance, correct? You should realize that is a total violation of Occam's Razor and I go over this in my other video.

The anthropic principle is from the Greek, anthropos meaning human and says, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", or "the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The difference is no one is asking you to accept design *first* before proceeding with reason. You are accepting multiple universes *first* and *then* proceeding with reason. One ought only proceed to reason based upon what is *known* (the universe is fine-tuned). Your reasoning requires me to *first* accept that there are multiple universes for any of your reasoning to be valid-- a shaky premise-- since there is zero experimental evidence for ANY of the multi-verse theories.

The weak anthropic principle does not answer the fine tuning question. It shows that the fine tuning question is subjective. The analogy with the firing squad is not a good one as the expected outcome of the firing squad is to hit, and a miss demands an explanation. In the case of a universe there is no expected outcome as we lack access to information of the creation of the constants of nature. We can however imagine an infinite number of hypothetical universes. Any of the imaginable configurations would have their own unique traits which they are finely tuned to create. Did it happen this way by chance or by design? Fine tuning does not suggest or provide an answer to that question as it would happen in any case. If universes were created over and over again with random configurations this universe would happen eventually. If universes were created by gods and they happened to like this style it would happen too. Proposing a god only moves the fine tuning question to the god. Why is he fine tuned to create this type of universe? By chance or by intelligent design?

Actually no, you are well within your rational right to say "there may be something else to explain this, I don't know". But then do not turn around and tell me I am wrong and the designer is not the best inference, because you have not offered a better inference. It is a question of logic. What is the most logical conclusion apart from what we may presently hope it to be?

And you realize even if this falls there are dozens of other arguments? This is one part of a cumulative case that is growing, like my newest video with the digital physics argument, which does affect our understanding of reality and science, since it argues for virtual reality theory.

Speculating as to the notion of an infinite number of chances using *any* of the multi-verse theories-- violates Occum's Razor. Again. 1) I tell you *exactly* how dice have to fall in order for high-order, sentient life to come into existence. 2) I throw the dice 3) they land how I said they must-- You wouldn't posit a "Many Worlds" quantum interpretation of how the dice fell. You'd conclude the dice were loaded, or I used magnets-- you'd conclude the dice were DESIGNED to fall as I said.

This video made me think of Matt Dillahunty in one of his documentaries where he made a similar argument with the cards the 1st time i watched it I was unable to beat his argument and then one day I realized it's a trick if you know how to do the trick it's no longer impossible or unlikely to get whatever outcome you want

I didn't send you a link, I referred you See the link in the information section written by Luke A. Barnes.

You missed out some of the most fundamental arguements atheists have proposed, namely - that there may be a relationship between the constants (i.e. if the speed of light is x then the weak nuclear force is y) that we do not understand yet. you have to bear in mind that we have only implemented the scientific method for just over 200 years at this point - physics, and science in general, is nowhere near a state of completion. - that the processes that occured in the big bang may necessitate certain principles and constants. we can only 'document' what happened past the first few microseconds of cosmic inflation, and thus the very first mechanics of the big bang are nowhere near fully understood. this means that scientists may one day determine that if the big bang occurs in way 'x' then the fundamentals constants of the universe are necessarily 'y'. - that some scientists (such as Lee Smolin) have argued that a Darwinian-esque natural selection of the multiverse can show why the constants appear to be fine-tuned. Very concisely, his argument states that black holes are necessary for the development of a universe (think oscillating universe theory) and to develop black holes, a universd needs fundamental constants in a certain range (i.e. the speed of light, nuclear force of starts, gravitational constants etc.). This means that universes that have constants in a certain range can give rise to 'daughter' universes, which are more effective if the fundamnetal constants are more precise and more precise, and eventually, much like Darwinian evolution before it, there is a scientific explanation that refutes the teleological arguement. The main point I am trying to convey with these arguments is that it is more logically coherent to presume that there is cosmology and physics left undiscovered by our species then to invoke an intelligent designer. On top of ignoring some of the main lines of atheist arguement on this topic, you have also perpetuated many theist misconceptions in thus video. - firstly, however logically incoherent you consider the apparent fine-tuning of the universe to be, the invocation of an intelligent designer is ALWAYS more incoherent. This is because, however 'unlikely' you consider the universe to be, it is infinitely more unlikely that a supreme intelligence, for all intensive purposes, just 'happened' to exist to create the universe in the first place. - secondly, you mischaracterise the anthropic principle to a laughable degree. All that the a.p states is that the probability of universal existence THAT GIVES RISE TO LIFE is unlikely, but we know that it is not impossible as we exist to ponder such questions. Effectively, it states that even if there was a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of life existing in the presence of our fundamental constants, due to the fact there are trillions of stars (and presumably more planets than that) it is acceptable to assume that there is AT LEAST one planet that can thrive under those constants. - thirdly, you nonchalantly brush off the multiverse theory when considering Dawkins. If you had given credence to this theory, then you would have noted that in an infinite number of universes, the degree of implausibility of our 'fine-tuned' constants pales in comparison. Even if you ignore the three points I made at the start of this comment (the interconnected theory, the necessity theory or the compound evolution theory) the 10^(very large number) chance of 'x' physical constant leaves an infinte amount of universes with a different constant 'x'. - finally, you did not consider the possibility that we only perceive these constants as fine-tuned as we are the only form of life that can thrive in them. In another multiversal universe, if the constants changed and there was an alien species who thrived in those conditons, they would consider those constants just as fine-tuned as you consider ours to be.

You said "who decided the universe was fine tuned". And I was pointing out, it was the physicists who study it. It is no longer a question: if the universe was finely-tuned. It is now the question of why the universe is finely-tuned. Atheists say the multiverse, and theists say a designer.

I, of course, am interested. However, Luke A. Barnes as responded to these estimates. See the 5th link in the information section. For example, he notes that it is incorrect to say the Probability Density Function (PDF) for a model parameter is uniform in log10x over the whole range. This drastically changes calculations.

Yes you did. You said, "Statistically one could NOT suggest for "life" and "non-life is dominant in the universe". Attacking me doesn't refute the argument. No where does the fine tuning argument say this. So that is what I was refuting.

Are actually saying that the probability distribution of 1 coin toss is not 1 in 2? You are confusing the probability with the outcome, and confusing one outcome with multiple outcomes. Our universe is not the result of multiple explosions (analogous to multiple coin tosses), but one, which is why we can mathematically calculate the probability. Do you actually think physicists are guessing? I'm not talking about his position ID, I'm talking about his work on modal logic and ontology.

1. We have metaphysical reasoning. One needs to show that Life Prohibiting Universes are necessarily not possible, which cannot be done. 2 Based on all best evidence we have, we know it isn't because of physical necessity. If that changes tomorrow, then the argument changes.

Seriously, just read the scientists: Barnes Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek, etc. They all say the universe is finely tuned. I am merely referring to experts. They used the phrase "fine-tuned". The question we now have before, as the atheist Weinberg says, we now have to pick between a benevolent designer or a multiverse.

Better to say you don't know than to appeal to an invisible, hypothetical designer.

And all those universe all produce the same consequence, either a universe that just contains atoms or one that collapses back in on itself. So there is nothing unique about them and they all produce the same result. As I said in the video, it is not the high improbably constants, but the high improbable constants with the outcome.

We don't have any other universes, we have this one. The teleological argument looks at the fine-tuning and draws to the best inference to explain why it is here. There are no other universes to look at.

Oh my no. See the 5th link in the information section. Luke Barnes wrote a paper refuting Stenger. The universe has been finely-tuned. Stenger has made several fallacies that Barnes points out.

1 Do you have a better inference? Simply dismissing is not refuting. 2 No, that is what you do when you draw an inference, you take the data you do have and reach a conclusion. Simply calling it garbage is not an argument. 3. Then give me a reason. Simply dismissing is still not an argument.

That is just incorrect. The other outcomes are all the same and produced by numerous configurations, producing a universe that either collapses back in on itself or expands to rapidly to form elementary particles. You are either lying now or just ignorant on the physics. Also, saying chance assume one can violate logic (Principle of Sufficient Reason) and Occam's Razor.

I can't believe there aren't more parodies of these arguments. I mean, there are so many parodies of the stereotypical Christian (fideist, antiscience, etc.), but there are NONE of possibly the stupidest group of arguments that I've ever heard for anything, the WAP.

but what about other possible extraterrestrial life that can survive in other physical conditions than those on earth? if we do find them, does that disprove the fine tuning argument?

Yes, now you are getting it. It is inadequate to allow the outcome (of being there to witness being alive) to serve as the explanation (of why the universe produced life). That is the point of the analogy. That is begging the question: The universe has no intent, therefore it is pointless to assume it has intent. The question is did we come about by chance, or was there intent involved. If it is chance you have to hold to a multiverse, as Susskind points out, and my first video addresses that.

Kudos, IP. You hit the three most common objections that the typical village atheist routinely trots out against the teleological argument. And, in all 3 cases, you showed that their explanations don't actually explain anything -- they are just weak dodges -- and moreover they don't actually evade the problem either. Well done.

1. The size of the universe is actually necessary for life. Barrow and Tipler pointed out that a universe containing the mass of our own galaxy would only of existed for less than a month, so we need a massive galaxy for the little life we know about so far. 2. Those possibilities are not actual existing universes though, as there is no observable data to confirm. Plus, they would all have to be finely-tuned since possibilities arise after the big bang and would be the same structured universe.

You misunderstand the anthropoid principle. Think of this analogy.... space is vast. Why don’t we find ourselves in interstellar space? In the light years and light years of the void? Or on the other planets? We find ourselves concentrated here on earth because that’s where conditions are right for humans. On this tiny spec. There are vast swaths that have no humans.

LOL, didn't I tell you to stop insulting? You still did not refute the physical calculations that shows the cosmological constant has been finely tuned to 1 in 10^120. Again, refute that and you have have some ground. Otherwise, that piece of evidence and the other finely-tuned constants points to an inference.

No, page 23 goes on to show that "there are vastly more ways of being dead". This is confirmed by the rest of the paper, as Barnes goes on. If it was a uniform distribution there would not be "vastly more ways of being dead". Instead, there would only be a vast amount of ways of being alive.

what do you mean other versions of matter?

No, because the propose is not behind how one shoots but behind why they would miss. And he could rule that to but only after investigation.

Again, I'm glad we can agree physical necessity is not an option. The question then is chance or design. Since chance is a violation of Occam's Razor because you have to assume all the order came together by luck, I argue Design makes more sense and is the better inference.

I did not manually inject it into them, that would be question begging if I did. 2, 3 and 4 are the same thing. 6 is pointless until one is offered. I then offered reasons 2 is bad.

LOL, I'm quoting the physicists here. So let me explain. The term boring isn't being used like a personal preference by physicists, but the fact that other configuration produce the exact same result every time. Take the cosmological constant. Every configuration over ours would produce a universe that speeds up too fast & no elementary particles would be produced. Boring consequences refer to the fact that it produced the same result every time. Our configuration is unique, 1 in 10^120 unique.

The problem is if by -B you mean ex nihilo, then know I reject it and hold to panenthiesm. The universe was created from the energy of God, see the energy-eseence distinction. God, being necessary would be his own performer. Wlhat? Because I don't agree with you, therefore I have not studied philosophy?