Not to me. So on to the rest of your spiel. I pointed out to you that
Furthermore, It is a tautology.
Justify this claim.
As you may think you know, a tautology is always true and cannot ever be untrue (as long as the words are so defined). Since a tautology is a circular definition of words, it is ony about words. It is not about the empirical world. (Which is where the mathematical science of probability is compelling) It explains nothing about our observations.
Tautologies masquerade as though they convey knowledge and information, when in fact, they convey none.
Cosmology. A core basis for the naturalist ToE is a "cosmological naturalism" that is improbable (at extreme levels...at far beyond the purely mythical levels of monkeys typing up Shakespeare's Hamlet)...hence the "anthropic principle" previously alluded to is advanced, (in either the strong or weak version). Stephen Hawking's formulation is frequently embraced by those seeking a desperate evasion of the obvious.
"According to this theory, there are many different universes or many different regions of a single univer, each with its own initial configurtion and perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask they questions: "Why is the universe the way we see it? The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here! (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p. 124-125)
He begins with a good discussion of the metaphysical antrhopic principle, with its many alternative universes having properties unlike ours. Then in the second half, he shifts the focus to our existence as observersd and gives the classic tautological formulation--the universe is the way we see it because "If it [the universe] had been different, we would not be here." The tautology captivates his readers since they automatically accept it as true, and it sounds explanatory. In actuality it explains nothing and may be removed without loss. All the explanatory power is derived from the "other universes." Yet Hawking gives his readers the erronieous impression that the tautological formulation is where the explanation resides. With this misperception in place, Hawking then goes back to remove the 'other universes' from his explanation altogether, as if they had no real importance.
[In]n what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in another universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory. (Hawking, 1988, p. 125)
In this way, Hawking gives the mistaken impression that the anthropic principle: (1) is an explanation of the universe's design; (2) is true; and (3) does not necessarily require other universes.
All of the anthropic principle props to cosmological naturalism so far are tautological, heavily dependent on an untestable metaphysical assumption, which is linguistically a sleight of hand.
Natural Selection tautologies. In biology, again the tautology in ToE manifests, when it relies on the necessary assumption of "natural selection" or rather of "selection of the fittest". Natural selection claims to identify the survivors. Which progeny survive? One ToE naturalist, Robert Chapman answered it thus: The progeny of those organisims who leave more surviving progeny. That is a tautology.
Tautological fitness is when fitness is defined as survival, thereby making natural selection a tautology. To reprise:
(1) It masquerades as an explanation when it is not.
(2) It is 'always true' (by definition) and thereby is intended to capture our confidence.
(3) Tautological fitness is observable and measurable, therefore it seems like empirical science...when it is not.
Now for a remark on the already proffered misrepresentations your side has tendered on probability "i.e., the fallacy of incredulity."
This attempted disparagement is non-responsive and non-persuasive, and in fact not an argument of "fallacy" at all. Science rarely deals in pure logic. Science is a tentative enterprise undertaken by finite beings finite observations. Empirical facts are never established with perfect, formal certainty. Instead, a fact is something so thoroughly confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
For example, it is a fact that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard will not assemble an airplane, a house, or a watch. For the scientist it would be perverse to insist otherwise.
Yet some evolutionists do insist otherwise. They insist that no probability is ever too small to bar evolution. One example is from Robert Steiner's vociferous anti-creation article, in Reason magazine. A creationist had argued that the odds against forming even the simplest protein molecule by random chance were far greater than 10 to the 67th power, to one. Steiner argued that highly improbable outcomes can often occur, but in each of his examples, the outcome is guaranteed by his premises. The outcomes are already present within his starting assumptions, yet he erroneously calculates extremely low probablities. This creates the confusion on which his argument thrives. By misapplying probability theory he attempts to discredit its validity.
So also has every ToE zealot I have ever seen on a Free Republic thread to date.