Occam's razor

Is there an argument somewhere hidden in there? Because a thought experiment should accompany an argument, otherwise this is just poetry.

>It seems like people learned how to argue/debate from watching atheist vs religion debates.
Because that's exactly what happened.

The puddle thinks that the hole it is in is engineered for it as the shitposter thinks the world is engineered for him.

If I were 12 I would think the puddle story was deep. However, I now know that profundity is a sure sign of vacuity.

> vacuity

You guys seem to miss the basics of the fine-tuning argument.
If we change the parameters of the constants of nature just a tiny bit, life as we know it could not exist. If we begin to imagine potential universes with different values, there are vastly many more that do not allow for life than ones that do.
Of course, people like to argue about "life as we know it" to skew the probability, but I am skeptical of other outlandish forms of life. Silicon based makes sense to some degree, but even then that would make a small window of universes that produce life.

> If we change the parameters of the constants of nature just a tiny bit, life as we know it could not exist.

If it is true, which it probably isn't

You assume that physical constants are totally arbitrary instead of dependent on each other or something else.

But we can't find ourselves in any of those other universes. Life is an emergent property of this kind of universe, so we obviously have to observe ourselves being in one like it.

There are many more ways to lose a lottery than to win it, but it's not surprising that someone will win it.

>"life as we know it"
If life could exist in significantly different forms then the moon would be crawling with mooncritters.

If someone is struck by lightning does that make it a likely event for a human being?
Probability, my friend.