Well the problem with these type of "probability" arguments is that they usually are based on fallacious assumptions that render them meaningless.
The first assumption is that there is only one particular pathway that could have led to the universe having the parameters it does. But this is an unwarranted assumption.
If you shuffle a deck of 52 cards, the odds of getting any particular arrangement of the cards is 1/(52!) or about 1 part in 10 to the 68th power. But you have to get
some arrangement, and once you have shuffled, obviously the odds of you having the arrangement you now have are 1.
Likewise, the assumption that there is only one possible pathway that could have led to our universe's current configuration, or only one configuration that could have supported life, is not warranted by the physics. And we are here, so this "card draw" worked.
The second error is to assume that the individual odds of each fundamental constant in the universe having a particular value are all independent, so that the odds multiply, leading to what looks like very small odds.
But this is also unwarranted. Physics constrains the relationships between fundamental constants. So the odds of having a particular set of constants are not independently multiplicative for all the individual constants.
These "large number odds" areguments look superficially attractive to people wqho aren't used to thinking in terms of how such large numbers relate to each others, but I've yet to see one that isn't nonsense when more closely examined.
FWIW I am also Catholic , albeit maybe more "liberal" theologically than some.
Edited by paisano, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2