> "the opposite ... thus, there is no need to appeal to an intelligent designer of the universe"

I'm not saying it's an argument for God, I'm saying more that it's as logically poor and useless as 'God' as an answer to the question. "Why are my parents white?" "if they weren't, you wouldn't be asking why they are white". "Why am I typing with my fingers?" "if you typed with your toes you wouldn't be asking why you type with your fingers". It's not an answer, it's a wordplay loopback which takes up the place of an answer and blocks anything else from going there.

> "Well, it explains why the universe is fine-tuned, if you buy the argument."

No, it observes that the universe is fine tuned but doesn't explain anything. How the parameters could possibly vary (how could the 'charge on an electron' concievably be tuned across the entire Universe, by any means, where is the tuning knob?), how the tuning actually happened - what process, where the multiverse universes could physically or temporally be, how they could arise, why they arise with different parameters, nothing. Worse, it suggests knowledge that the parameters can and do vary, knowledge of a multiverse or a tuning process applying to one universe, when that knowledge doesn't exist. It reassures the existence of a larger more powerful unknowable thing behind the scenes which makes this universe perfect for humans (cough Godlike cough).

> "Yep, just like any other answer to the question, since it's a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one."

"We don't know" predicts nothing, but doesn't pretend to be an answer, doesn't pretend to be more than it is.

> "It offers an explanation."

It placates (or frustrates) with a non-explanation. It's feel-good sugar when you wanted nutrition.

> "closes the book on any further questions / No more than any other answer does."

More than "We don't know" does.

>Well, it explains why the universe is fine-tuned, if you buy the argument.

No it doesn't. Goddidit is not an explanation.

>Yep, just like any other answer to the question, since it's a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.

Nope, not like any other answer. Like Satandidit.

>It offers an explanation.

No it doesn't. Goddidit is not an explanation.

>No more than any other answer does.

No, not like other answers. Science never closes the book on further questions.

If somebody asks why Earth is more suited to life than Mars, we could talk about temperature, size, magnetic field, water availability. If someone asks but why Earth has all that and Mars doesn't, then "God did it" and "if it were the other way around you would be asking the other way around" both offer as little information (none), as little explanation (none) as each other.

The "why is there something rather than nothing" is a fascinating and mind boggling philosophical question.

A good read is https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/02/08/why-is-...

The same one which guarantees you will understand my point before coming in with a smug putdown about something I didn't say. "We don't know" is a far better answer than the Anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is worse than an answer, it has negative value, it answers nothing but has the shape and feel of an answer, it's a fake.

This is an incredible misunderstanding of the Anthropic principle. It has nothing to do with god, it does not suggest that life could only exist on Earth, and it does not suggest that we are alone in the universe.

If anything it's an argument against Intelligent Design. E.g. life is the statistical result of a vast universe (or multiverse) of permutations - some of which are not conducive to life, and some of which are. And when life looks out and says "wow it's uncanny how perfect this place is, there must be a divine hand at work" - it's only observational bias that makes it appear that way. Because life could only exist to make such observations in regions of the universe which are suitable for life.

But on the other hand it also prevents one from saying "we exist, therefore intelligent life must be commonplace".

> we are pretty sure we are alone in the entire damn Universe.

We absolutely are not sure of that in any way, shape or form. Quite the opposite, given our knowledge of the universe and conditions necessary for life forming, it's highly unlikely we're alone. There's a reason that we call a paradox the fact that we haven't found any extraterrestrial life yet: the Fermi Paradox.

Anyway, the anthropic principle says nothing about that.