It occurs to me that there are two ways of looking at the precarious way life is balanced in this tiny world of ours. Either the chances of things being 'just-so' are so slim as to border on the miraculous (indeed, many would say sashaying wholesomely past that point entirely), or life could only have existed with the situation as we find it, hence it's more-or-less an inevitability (bearing in mind that in order to observe the observable there must be an observer on hand in the first place).
Both seem to me to be equally logically valid, and equally indisputable using the evidence we have at hand. Yet the conclusions drawn are nearly polar opposites. Or quite similar depending on how you view it. I suppose you could say, on the one hand God had to have been involved because of the obscene remoteness of the probabilities of our current sufficiencies. But on the other hand, the universe had to have an observer there so that it could exist in the first place. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it make a sound?