Carbon-based life isn't statistical but a fact. If the universe is infinite, then carbon based life must happen somewhere. I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' "puddle analogy" as given in Wikimedia's Anthropic principle: If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!

Many physicists find it difficult to explain the fine tuning of basic constants. But most are not willing to ascribe it to a supernatural being. It seems like Hoyle was "thinking out loud" about this conundrum.

And even if you do admit such a "super-monkeyer", there's no reason to equate it with the Judeo-Christian God that cares about humans and hears and answers our prayers. It could be more like a kid creating a Lego community.

@WeatherVane, "Carbon-based life isn't statistical but a fact.". What are statistics if not a compilation of facts?!

@Barmar, right, because a "supernatural super-monkeyer" is rational for an intellectual to believe in, but if you call that thing "God" then you are a superstitious simpleton, is that your point? Because why would one not immediately draw a logical comparison, unless because of personal bias?

@MichaelHall The point being made is that even if there does exist some god-like being that fine-tuned everything so that life could evolve in the Universe, that fact does not imply that that god is the God that appeared before the prophets/caused women to give virgin birth. The Universe being fine tuned/created by a god does not logically imply that the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc. is the actual word of that god.

@MichaelHall actuarial statistics used by insurance companies are based on facts. Other statistics are based on theory. I remember seeing a "what chance that we exist" article using theoretical probabilities about stars, planets, goldilocks etc., but it overlooked the absurdity of the creature in question actually existing and making this bizarre calculation.

...and when an iPhone spontaneously comes into existence by quantum theory (and was 'fixed' by the power of observation) I will say "No! That's the wrong model!"

@WeatherVane I see what you did there.

@user80226 what I would like to do is point out that the chances of a specific scenario are vanishingly slim, but of any meaningful one are considerably greater. That's the strange thing about the synchronocity thing – it happens so frequently because any pair of similar events (their multitude of properties) might provoke it.

@WeatherVane An even more extreme example than the iPhone.

@WeatherVane, other statistics like aviation mishap rates, average temperature per decade, glacial melt rates, need I go on?! All statistics are facts. Hypothesis, theories and predictions are formed based on statistical facts.

@MichaelHall I think the issue is about drawing conclusions from statistics, i.e. correlation vs. causation. While statisticians regularly say they're not equivalent, we often treat them similarly when making inductions. We call them "facts" when we think the equivalence is undeniable.

@Barmar, I understand the fallacy of inferring causation when there is a correlation, the issue is with the statement "statistics are based on theory." Weathervane has this exactly bass ackwards...

@MichaelHall if you mean "ass backwards" then say so. Actuarials are based on facts. The supposed chance of carbon life exisiting is based on theory. It can't be based on fact: on that reckoning the chance is 100%. And in the world of turf accountancy, the odds given are initially based on supposed probability (form) but in the end are based on the actual money placed: not on the likelihood that a horse / dog / flea will win.

@WeatherVane, yes, that's what I meant. It's simply a colloquial and potentially slightly less offensive way of putting it. But now I really don't understand your point... because "Carbon-based life isn't statistical but a fact." contradicts "The supposed chance of carbon life existing is based on theory. It can't be based on fact". Well, which is it?

@MichaelHall how hard is it to distinguish reality from suppostion?

@WeatherVane, it depends... How hard is it to answer a simple question and rectify your contradiction?

@controlgroup, "The Universe being fine tuned/created by a god does not logically imply that the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc. is the actual word of that god." No, but it certainly begs for some deep and serious follow-up questions, does it not?

@MichaelHall please rectify your absurd "Hypothesis, theories (but not necessarily predictions) are formed based on statistical facts."

@WeatherVane, I'm not going to battle you over words and concepts with common definitions that are well understood by most. I offered a simple opportunity to clarify a contradiction in your statements and you are turning this into a childish playground argument. Good day.

@MichaelHall Yes, it does raise interesting questions. None of them are "is this religion right?" because none of those religions say that their god created the Universe via fine-tuning. If you're willing to leave out all the parts in the Bible that tell the Universe being created in a way completely-different from what fine-tuning would look like, then yeah, it seems pretty convincing. So would any other explanation; leave out the bad parts and you're tautologically left with the good parts. Even a god could not do the necessary quantum predictions to fine-tune, anyway.

It has been said that the more someone contributes to a field, the more they tend to say and do things which hold it back later on. What sort of being monkeys with people to cause that? Only human failing.

@ScottRowe, "failing", or insight not taken to a satisfying conclusion?

@controlgroup, the writer of Genesis didn't have the vocabulary to describe whatever insight he may have had in the vernacular of 21st century astrophysics. Nor was he writing to such an audience. It is an extremely condensed and simplified account, and has never claimed to be a scientifically accurate document. "Even a god could not do the necessary quantum predictions to fine-tune, anyway." You're thinking way too small... If there is a God that created the universe and all matter and energy therein, whatever equations might be needed to fine tune things would be trivial.

We should definitely go to the effort of following every crackpot idea to a satisfying conclusion, and then thumping future crackpots with the tome about it.

@ScottRowe, right... it must have been a mischievous supernatural monkey!

Can't thump them then, unfortunately.

@MichaelHall This is one of the problems with this discussion. We can talk about aliens, and nobody jumps to "Scientology is Right!", but the instant you mention a creator of the universe, people automatically jump a God who knows about humanity and cares about us. Why not our universe being an industrial product, a child's toy, a laboratory experiment, a decoration...