"Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning.
Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a
precise match between two things: 1) his shape
and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives.
Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is
that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the
solidity of the hole, and C) the constant
downward force of gravity, he will always take
the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been
different, his shape would adjust to match it.
Any hole will do for a puddle.
This is precisely where the analogy fails: any
universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid.
It will not adjust to any old universe. There
could have been a completely dead universe:
perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before
recollapsing or is so sparse that no two
particles ever interact in the entire history of
the universe.
Think about the real explanation to Doug’s
observation: A (fluid water) + B (solid hole) +
C (gravity). If the puddle analogy applies to
fine-tuning, what corresponds to A+B+C?
What explains the match between what our
universe does and what life requires? The
puddle analogy doesn’t say. Invoking the
puddle against fine-tuning is essentially saying
“perhaps a solution exists.” Well, OK, sure,
thanks for that, but what could that solution
be?"
(and ain't it interesting - without the hole there would be no Doug the puddle. A hole itself is a formation with specific parameters. Even if life was fluid, it still does need a hole, not a hill or a plato (and all three of them can be made of the same materials), to exist.