We have not yet established that these constants are tunable in the first place.
If they are not, then the 'fine tuning' argument is moot.
That was the point of my first question.
You are saying that we have not established that they could be otherwise.
Perhaps it is of NECESSITY that these constants be so exquisitely set at their values.
So we imagine that these constants of necessity HAD to be what they are, that they cannot be otherwise or TUNED other than what they are. They are not tunable. There could have been no probability that they anything else. That's your scenario.
Then doesn't that cause one to ask WHY of necessity they could not be otherwise?
For one that theory discards with the multiverse hypothesis, I think.
And it still is unfathomably strange that the constants HAD to be (untunable wise) set at the big bang so that life and human life would exist. I mean space wise there seems a vast amount of area in which life DID NOT arise. So why was the entire cosmos tuned so that in this little tiny corner of the universe WE ARE HERE?
There is far more non-life is seems in the available space than there is life.
Untunable constants that just happened to be so exquisitely (and some cases
astronomically so) calibrated for us to arrive, has to cause us to wonder.
Who legislated that un-tunable constants permit humans to exist?
Okay, WHAT legislated that un-tunable so astronomically luckily permit us to