Comment: So you reject

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I tend to agree that the moon (see in situ)

So you reject

the weak anthropic principle?

The reason the many-worlds or multiverse has to be posited is because for the evolutionary explanation requires that selection has something to work on. If there was only one universe, and it just happened to support life, where the billions of other possible combinations of parameters would arguably not have supported any life, then it would indeed be astonishing good fortune for the universe to just have been that lucky strike. Only with an endless succession or number of parallel universes does the coincidence or selection bias explanation become plausible.

I don't get the probability argument here. Us being here to observe the universe, and the universe being conducive to the formation of intelligent life, are not independent variables. No matter how improbable it might be that a universe would be conducive to the formation of intelligent life, the odds of us finding ourselves in a universe conducive to the formation of beings like us is 1.0. That's just as true if we're in the only universe that ever is or was or will be, or if our universe is one among multitudes.