What I think Nick was getting at is that there are plausible universes where the values of fundamental physical constants lead to universes that are *everywhere* hostile to life as we vizualize it. For example, universes which expand so rapidly that galaxies don't form, meaning stellar nursuries don't form meaning no planets. Or where atoms aren't stable, or baryonic matter at all can't form.

In those universes, life is probably impossible at all times and all places. So why does our combination of constants and laws make life at least theoretically possible?

Within a given universe that allows for at least some life-friendly locations, the fraction of such locations that do contain plausible habitats is yet another question (how common are terrestrial planets/moons with liquid water, gin, or whatever your prefered solvent is)? Then, how manyof those develop life? I.e., we're into the Drake Equation.

There is nothing in cosmology that says our universe had to allow the formation of stars and planets and billions of years for evolution.

Did we get lucky? Do infinite universes exist, with all possible sets of conditions? Is cosmology not complete? Did God *make* it happen this way?