I haven’t read Susskind, and the snippets in this thread certainly aren’t enough to make up for this lack. Wikipedia, on his book The Cosmic Landscape, states…
…which is pretty much exactly what FJ said.
Regarding the relationship between the principle and ID, as I’ve already stated, “The “fine tuning” argument for intelligent design doesn’t compel, because there’s nothing about this “fine tuning” that can be shown to necessitate intelligent design.”
I think the Codmologist’s argument has the following structure:
D or not D
If A then B
A
Therefore B
Therefore D
The environment is designed or not designed
If we exist then the environment is fit for life
We exist
Therefore the environment is fit for life
Therefore the environment is designed
Susskind is pointing out exactly what you said: the conclusion does not follow from the premises - the fact we are here has no bearing on whether or not the environment was designed. The point being that WAP does not support ID.
Perhaps if I state it this way;
By what means does Susskind make it obvious that the anthropic principle has nothing to do with ID?
First problem, this is an inductive argument and not a deductive argument. Does anyone else get the difference or we that far in the stone-age here. That is why the argument does not compel,because it is not a deductive argument.
Second problem, premise A is ~D, and so is premise B. They are both not-D, just by simple symbolic logic. So the conclusion would follow, under that. Not a Raven, which would be ~D, is verified with Pink Rhino(F), Yellow skinned human beings (G), and etc. They are all not ravens, ~D.
Since you don’t even state why there is nothing to debate in your post.
FJ, that we must inhabit a habitable universe is a tautology. You can’t do what Susskind does which is use that fact to prove that the Big Bang is not the result of design.
Here’s another quote from Susskind that demonstrates his flawed logic:
No, Susskind is making the positive argument that the universe is the result of chance. He clearly says: ““Somewhere in the megaverse, the constant equals this number; somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny pocket where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life. That’s it! That’s all! There is no other answer to the question.”
When he says there is no other answer that is a positive argument against design. But this is a fallacy. His argument is a tautology, that we must inhabit a habitable universe is evidence neither for nor against the argument from design.
I can tell you that his assertion concerning that “constant” is flat out false and has nothing at all to do with chance, again regardless of the notions of ID.
which part of that quote is flawed logic? it all made perfect sense to me.
The way I see it, if we accept the megaverse concept (and I’m not sure there is compelling evidence to do so) there will be an infinite number of universes with an essentially random variation in the physical constants that might have an impact on the development of life. Yes it is tautologous that we live in a universe that permits our type of life. I don’t think he’s saying this disproves ID. I think he’s saying it dispenses with the variety of ID that views our universe as singular and uniquely suited to human life.
Bear in mind that Susskind is a physicist, not a philosopher.
His conclusion. It is presumptuous and happens to be entirely false.
His fallacy is that it is a non-sequetor, “It might be this way, therefore it must be this way.”
Apparently he was.
And yes, physicists make extremely poor philosophers/logicians.
actually yes, I agree that that is fallacious. the rest of the quote is fine, just not the part where he says there’s no other possible answer, i would agree with that.
Yes, it is fallacious, but it is obvious hyperbole. I still think his point is that if we assume the existence of a multiverse, we take much of the wind out of the sails of those who would argue that our universe was tailor made with human life in mind.
You yourself say it’s tautological.
Well that wouldn’t work against me very well. I would simply reply that the reason we aren’t in those other universes is because THIS is the one “made for us”… 
i think that’s james’ tongue-in-cheek way of acknowledging the validity of the rebuttle. after all, he’s already said “I agree with FJ on the fact that the anthropic principle is a silly argument FOR intelligent design”
…and against. 
It wouldn’t make sense to use it against it.
“Our environment has qualities perfectly suited for us, therefore there is no god.”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody actually make that argument, so pointing out that it’s a bad argument is pretty pointless. Nobody’s making it, so it doesn’t matter that it’s bad.
But I think that was the point of Susskind’s argument, else why go through it.
The anthropic principle shouldn’t have anything to do with the entire ID issue although I know apologists have tried to use it for ID.
But it doesn’t fit either way.
If we assume there is just one universe (which would be the standard assumption before “multiverse” theories, and still is for most people) the anthropic principal carries a lot more weight. Although ultimately it is fallacious, I can certainly see why people might be drawn along by that line of reasoning.