I don’t think this is a very good argument for the existence of God. (Although I believe there are many good arguments for his existence.)
If the universe was put together another way, we wouldn’t be around to wonder why it was put together the way it is.
It’s similar to wondering about the odds against you as a person being born. Dad meeting Mom. Conception with a particular sperm and egg combination, etc.
Billions to one against doesn’t come close. Yet here each of us is.
This used to be known as the 'Weak Anthropic Principle'. It was called 'weak' for a reason. GGG argues what used to known as the 'Strong Anthropic Principle'. It was called 'strong' for a reason. I see this debate tactic consistently in discussions with Darwinists, where the idea is that *any* darwinist argument is equivalent to *any* creationist argument, no matter how weak the darwinist argument is or how strong the creationist argument. This is the result of the rationale in the darwinist mind that 'everything is relative', therefore 'every opinion is equal'.
"It’s similar to wondering about the odds against you as a person being born. Dad meeting Mom. Conception with a particular sperm and egg combination, etc. Billions to one against doesn’t come close. Yet here each of us is."
This is the result of a failure to understand probabilities. The probability that *some* event out of a set of possible outcomes will happen is equal to 1. The probability that a *specific* required event will occur is 1/n where n is the total number of possible outcomes.
To claim that the probability that *some* event will happen is equivalent to the claim that a specified event with probability 1/n has happened is to grossly misunderstand the problem.
It's akin to claiming that the fact that all of the atoms in the universe are in some configuration at this instant and that this proves that the universe is uncreated. It's complete nonsense.