I appreciate the article and agree with most of it. However I didn’t find this argument very persuasive.
It isn’t that I think anything science has uncovered about the early universe or the possibility of a multiverse is evidence for believing no creator could possibly be involved. I just object to characterizing the conditions we happen to find in the only universe to which we have any access as a narrow escape from a firing squad. Scientists have sketched out a sequence of events which, all lined up and leading to the world we know, does almost seem like a winning lotto ticket. But how is that anything like a firing squad escapee where we understand the capacity and intention of the shooting squad? There is no reason to think a ‘big bang’ has the intention to destroy the possibility of life. We are unable to point to one instance of a universe in which that has ever happened. And we have no track record of big bang results on which to base any assignment of likelihood for our survival. It just isn’t an apt comparison.
To assign an equal probability to every conceivable ‘setting’ of the constants is a judgement call I don’t think anyone has any basis for making. We just don’t know whether our universe is like a coin both of whose sides represent an outcome hostile to the possibility of sustaining life, while a goldilocks outcome like ours requires that it land on its edge. I don’t know enough to characterize our universe as “lucky” let alone “miraculous”. Of course I also can’t rule out the possibility that those adjectives really do apply. So I agree with the main thrust of the article that arguments from science to theological conclusions serve neither side.