> saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? I am not suggesting that that is the case. You are

> saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? I am not suggesting that that is the case. You are speculating here, I am not. > I don't see why it's not fruitful to spell out why this analogy is unhelpful. Not the way it works. Your analogy, your burden. > Does it not warrant an explanation for why things are by chance, or why things are by necessity? An explanation for why things being by chance or necessity is founded? I am not speculating that either of those is or is not the case. You speculate because it gets you to the conclusion that you clearly want. I have no such need. > I think if someone postulates something intuitive Your speculation is not actually "intuitive." You describe it that way only because it is to your liking. > but false, regardless of their motivations, it's better to address why it's false instead of shutting down discussion. Depends on the discussion. As for this one, I will decline to continue it further.