Posted: Jan 07, 2015 1:57 am
Thommo wrote:It's both, the argument rests on assuming certain things about a sample space and underlying probability distribution, but then compounds the issue by having a conclusion that doesn't follow anyway.
Both, as in both our lack of knowledge of intent and the unstated assumption about the possibility of changing the laws, is the issue?
It occurred to me that with regards to not knowing the probability distribution of intent, that issue only applies if we postulate a single specific and unknown designer. If we keep it at the level of all possible designers, there is going to be some subset of designers which would choose a different set of laws/constants(ofc assuming this is possible bla bla). So we can never arrive at a 100% score for the kind of fine-tuning we observe on just "design". There simply are designers that would choose otherwise, we need only look at ourselves to confirm this.
With these caveats, I don't see any problem with the argument.