That argument only works (called the anthropic principle, I think) if there are multiple universes. Given a single universe, Sheavo, your argument doesn't show that the FT of the universe was not improbable.
And the argument that we are the universe is "fined tuned" for life only works if there is a God. If you had an alternative that wasn't' based upon something we cant' prove, I'd love for you to show it to me. But seeing as how we cant know anything regarding this matter, there really isn't any basis whatsoever to say that one theory that requires multiverses is any less valid than a theory that requires God.
All I have tried to do is show how it is possible,
not how it is, that our universe could be "finely-tuned" for life, without there needing to be a God, or a will which made this universe finely-tuned. The arguments being made are that because we find ourselves in a universe that is life-permitting, that this is for a reason - when it's basically a statement of fact that the only reason we can say this is because we find ourselves in a universe that is life-permitting.
A similar sort of response can be given to the claim that the fine-tuning is not improbable because it might be logically necessary for the parameters of physics to have life-permitting values. That is, according to this claim, the parameters of physics must have life-permitting values in the same way 2 + 2 must equal 4, or the interior angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. Like the "more fundamental law" proposal above, however, this postulate simply transfers the improbability up one level: of all the laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.(3)
The video I pointed to already showed how faulty this logic is. If there are more than one possibilities, i.e. more than one universe, than even though it might be highly improbable for life-permitting features to be around, then it's simply a matter of having a large enough sample size. I mean, it's highly improbable that I myself exist, not just my parents meeting each other, or them being born, but for the exact sperm which fertilized the egg and led to me.
Simply put, if we find ourselves in a universe which is life-permitting, that doesn't mean much beyond the fact that we find ourselves in a universe which is life-permitting. If it wasn't life-permitting, we wouldn't be here, etc.
But that is essentially, circular reasoning. It's that, "Why are we here? Because we're here."...and it doesn't really hold any water.
It's not circular at all. It's simply saying that
since we are in a universe that is life-permitting, we evolved and so we can ask these questions. Just like the solar system; looking around teh solar system, we know that it's very possible for a solar system to exist that does not permit life (as we know it). If we try and ask why it is that our solar system is set up so that we could evolve, we start asking a question we can't really ask. If you watch the video I linked to earlier, the astrophysicists references the historical problem of trying to determine why it is that the Earth is as far away from the Sun as it is, as if there were an actual physical necessity for this to be so. But the truth is, there is no necessity that Earth exists where it does, it was simply what resulted, and not for any predetermined reason.
I'll be honest, I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining this. The main point is simply that, with repetition, the "right" conditions for life can occur, and not for any special reason, or "fine-tuning."