Whine, Whine, Whine, It's All You Guys Do

The claims about improbability of things occurring at random,  by chance is most easily understood in terms of some larger number as opposed to one.  You can, of course, express it in terms of chances to some other number but that's just a matter of convenience to avoid dealing with fractions or decimals.  I've always heard "fine tuning" arguments expressed in terms of some stupendously large number to one because the improbabilities get so big in those arguments that opposing them to fractions doesn't help comprehension.

In other words, it's a measure of the probability of something happening once.  If it is a one in one chance of something happening, that's an expression of a virtual certainty that something is going to happen.  I'd say there's a one in one chance of someone being here to observe the sun rise in the morning because if the sun didn't rise there is no chance of anyone being around for it to happen.  While the chances that that one being "intelligent" are less certain, it was true on the first day that the first creature with a consciousness sufficiently capacious to perceive the heat from sunlight and presumably every day since then.

If the chances are one in two, then there's a chance something might happen or it might not and, with a sufficiently large sample, eventually it would happen in half the cases of that happening and in the other half it not happening.

If it were a five to one chance of it happening, in a sufficiently large sample then, if it were happening by chance, only one fifth of the examples in the sample showing what you were testing would happen.

As I said, I don't know if it is accurate that, as Barrow and Tipler claimed that there are (at least?) 10 events in the history of the universe that were required for intelligent life to arise, the probability of each of which is so remote that the sun should have gone through its entire evolution before it happened through random chance probability once is true.  Keep in mind they were atheists making claims that supported atheism.

But if even some of the less (though still vanishingly small) probabilities that comprise the anthropic argument AND THE ATHEISTS' BASIS FOR THE  CREATION OF  AND ARGUMENTS FROM THEIR MULTIVERSE CONJECTURE are that the chances of things being as they are are some stupendously large number to one against it happening and the accumulated improbabilities comprise an ever so much more stupendously large number against what we like to think of as our intelligent species being here, that it was so improbable of it happening even in our one case, if it happened twice it wouldn't be that huge number to one of it happening but that huge number against one half. 

If it happened the huge number of times that the sci-ranger, SETI true believers like to throw around as "must be true" based on the number of stars in the visible universe, then the basis for that in contemporary physics and cosmology is of such improbability that discovering two or five other lines of life arising would have to compel either a a belief that our physics is entirely inadequate to tell us much about physical reality or that things didn't happen by chance but by design and that the design was part of the creation of physical reality through the Creator of the universe. 

So, either it's a choice of believing your physics is drastically wrong, taking down the whole friggin' thing or believing in God, I guess.  Atheists live by the sword of citation of sciency improbabilities so they can die by it, too.  If you want to go that route.

And if you want to take the multiverse dodge away from the problem, that leads to all kinds of other problems for physics and, even more problematic, logic.  Since multiverses are not and almost certainly will never be observable, then if you want science to contain that conjecture, you've got to give up the most basic constituents of scientific method and your "science" stops being science and starts being sci-fi written in equations instead of florid, decadent adverb and adjective stuffed prose.  For a start, how would you confirm that any other universe DID NOT contain intelligent life unless you can find it THERE and not in some equation?  Given the number of years that SETI stuff has been looking for just an inkling of life on our universe, I'd love to hear how the "scientists" of the multiverse conjecture propose to determine that there is no life in universes they can't observe.

Not to mention that such a multiverse system may have to be even more finely tuned to produce whatever results it does.  My speculation is that eventually it would lead to the impossibilities of the calculations of probabilities being performed in the history of the human species, perhaps the life span of intelligent life in our universe.   I don't see that this multiverse gets you much except trying to do the "turtles all the way down" with universes instead of turtles.

Of course, I've said all along that I didn't much care about arguing for the existence of God for several reasons one of them because, in the end, it's a matter of choosing to believe, just as it's a matter of choosing to believe that there is no God or choosing to believe in the "multiverse" or whichever of those atheist cosmologists dream up and argue for and which their grad students will probably be fighting about till that baseless speculative hulk falls into the boneyard of discontinued science.   The habit of claiming that knowledge isn't in the end, a matter of choosing to believe something, a matter of choice, is pretty silly.