Hold on. We're wandering astray from the point of contention. And over-complicating things, as well. Let's return to your original comment. You wrote:
Just because lots of other people play the lottery, doesn't mean you're more likely to win.
This is the main idea to which I've been objecting. You're making a faulty analogy. A better analogy is that when you play a handful of different numbers in a lottery, you are more likely to win. If you play every conceivable number, you are guaranteed to win.
That was my only argument, and it's a rather simple argument. I'm objecting to the fundamentals of your math. That's it. Your remarks about how deduction is monotonic, etc. is nowhere near the point. The point is that with enough trials, the improbable becomes likely to occur, if not guaranteed to occur.
With that said, I'll let you lure me into the wilderness a bit.
Atheism predicts that U0 will forbid life.
I'll give you an argument that's every bit as compelling as FTA: Highly improbable things happen *all the time** in the universe without divine causation. The improbable is therefore highly probable. Atheism therefore predicts improbabilities like life in U0.*
It is improbable that Jane won the lottery. And yet she did. It is improbable that Steve got hit by lightning. And yet he did. It is improbable that flipped coins land on their edges. And yet they do. It is improbable that life exists in U0. And yet here we are. The existence of improbable occurrences doesn't get you one millionth of a millimeter closer to the existence of a deity.
Atheism predicts that U0 will forbid life.
This premise is problematic for many reasons. I'll touch on one: it takes an argument from ignorance and dresses it in disguise. Sure, based on what we currently know, life in U0 appears improbable. But that doesn't mean it is unlikely in any ultimate sense. It could simply be that we're not capable of making a proper calculation with our current knowledge, or from our limited position within U0.
I'm not interested in using the multiverse to disprove FTA's first premise. I have no idea whether a multiverse exists or doesn't. But it does highlight the possibility that we're missing important data necessary for assessing likelihoods. If our universe is merely one TRIAL out of an infinite number of other trials, then that deals a severe blow to FTA, whether you understand the math or not. Another possibility is a cyclical or oscillating universe, one that creates and destroys itself in an infinite series of big bangs and big crunches. This also gives us "trial universes" and therefore makes life more likely.
I'm not saying either of these scenarios are true. I'm saying we don't know. Which means it's premature to make claims like "Atheism predicts that U0 will forbid life." We have insufficient data to make such a claim.
I've never seen anyone seriously defend the objection you're trying to make
Frankly, it's not clear that you understand the objection I'm making. And if you're referring to the notion that there are possible naturalistic explanations for the apparent fine tuning we see in the universe, there are quite a few people are making and defending that objection.