Hi Iain,
I am trying to attach that word document again - I have changed its format but you can let me know if it is better.
The argument that we would not be here if the conditions were different but we are here and so there is no surprise they are like that, is circular and unhelpful. Martin Rees in his book Just 6 Numbers dismisses it - which is why he plumps for the multiverse idea. He likens it to a man who is condemned to death and has 20 marksmen who shoot him. All of them miss. He opens his eyes and says - ah, they all missed. Well I am alive so they must have missed - so there is nothing to ponder about that! It is clearly wrong for that man to walk away without imagining the chances of such a thing happening. Martin Rees goes for the multiverse because of the probabilities against one universe having just the right conditions - it allows him and others more slack with the statistics; (we are just lucky from an almost infiinite number of failed attempts).
The multiverse idea however is proposed for non-scientific motives - it is proposed because of an aversion to attributing something in nature to God. This is a philosophical position and has nothing to do with science. There is no empirical evidence for it and it goes against the principle of parsimony or Occam's razor.
I am personally very, very struck by the fine-tuning argument for God - as you can see. I see it as one of the most startling bits of evidence we have if you are looking for statistics and facts.
I am also very struck by the first cause arguments - and maybe we can look at these later.
Great to hear from you again.
Antony