Assignment task: Imagine a person who responds to the Fine-tuning Argument by reasoning as follows:
There are an awful lot of planets in our universe - like, trillions at least! In fact, physicists aren't presently certain whether or not the universe is even finite! (Some think it might already be infinite and, if so, then there are not just trillions but infinitely many planets!) Surely, it's not actually surprising that at least one of them (namely, ours) supports life. That is, surely God is not the better explanation for why there is life in the universe; life could easily have arisen here as a result of random chance.
(i) Why does this observation fail to undermine the Fine-tuning Argument? That is, what mistake/confusion is this person laboring under about the FTA?
(ii) Now consider the multiverse objection to the Fine-tuning Argument. Does that objection also commit the error identified in (i)?
(iii) This person has noted that physicists aren't sure whether the current universe is finite or already, actually infinite. What other argument does this observation potentially undermine and why? (be specific!)