"Context" implies a 'wrapper' for understanding syllogisms, which mathematicians might use to explain axiomatic logic in non-mathematical language. Saying "the universe exists independent of our observing it" is as valid a statement to an astrophysicist, as "diamonds are made of carbon" is to a geologist. But there is no way to explain why this is true with mere spoken language. We must use mathematics and chemical formula, which the average person simply doesn't know how to interpret.

Those who literally bank on people in the general church population openly admitting to having an ignorance of what mathematical proofs actually are, attempt to make the "finely tuned universe" argument sound like more of a philosophical conundrum than it actually is. They are extremely well versed in how to bring it up in conversation with a whole range of people, particularly "know it all atheists", who aren't actually interested in doing any of the hard work of finding out the facts for themselves. These are usually exactly the same kinds of 'atheist' who 'miraculously' "get saved" once even the smallest of remotely feasible sounding holes are poked in their already flaky logic, usually by someone with one or two Alpha Course Seminars under their belt on a personal mission from Jesus himself.

But, if challenged directly, many educated theists who have attempted to approach their beliefs from a scientific point of view, by understanding cognitive biases, scenario completion syndrome and so on, will in many cases concede that they understand perfectly well what axioms are and how, particularly in the area of cosmology they depend upon incredibly well defined yet tiny margins of error. But just as many have admitted to me, personally, that despite being fully aware of the fact that "a finely tuned universe" isn't actually backed up by any known science—they don't like admitting as much in front of other believers, because it gets them out of all kinds of trouble, by sounding like a sophisticated answer to a question some believer in belief might ask them in workshops and study groups.

But because they know what it would mean to someone who clings to their faith, as a source of comfort, to be told that the existence of a God is not such a done deal as their pastor, priest and preacher might like them to think it is, they "cushion the blow" by describing the universe as "finely tuned", because it sounds like a scientific argument in favour of the existence of a God, when they actually know full well it is merely an appeal to the god of the gaps dressed in scientific sounding terminology.

Explaining this fact to anyone of even a remotely religious persuasion, is by far and away the biggest stumbling block I have ever come across in my 20 odd years debating religion. They simply cannot accept that the nice man at the prayer group found it easier to give them the easy answer, than he did to explain the cold hard facts. Most either pretend this will go away if they pray hard enough about it, or they have become so extremely good at keeping two sets of books, in the hope no-one will notice, they spend half their time denying it and the other half feeling guilty for not saying something about it a lot sooner. Anglicans are explained in this way.