Notice how self-consistency is taken as granted, so that the author can make the case that everything is an accident. Self-consistency would imply that conservation laws and symmetry would apply in the multitude of Universes, an awesome concept, which would make the conclusion that "it's all an accident" an impossible one to make.
The arguments on this all are more than i have been able digest, but I found the response by Dawkins to Stein’s question in “Expelled” (good but which has some faults) as to where life came from to be revealing. Having expressed his utter disdain for the God of the Bible in particular, Dawkins then unequivocally disallowed an Intelligent Designer God, but was willing to postulate that maybe an advanced civilization (AC) developed this life form and seeded the earth, and expressing confidence that this might be verified soon, stipulating that this AC would have to have evolved also.
What was not asked was where this AC first came from, or energy or matter (mail order?) and the laws of gravity.
And since an ultimate Creator was rejected out of hand, but an AC was allowed, what needed to be explored is why this AC is acceptable and God is not.
Is it simply because eternal existence is objectionable, or because the God of the Bible in particular represents moral authority (i think atheists tend to have an animus toward authority telling them what to do) and judgment, and is a reminder of their finite condition which stands in need of God, rather than man being a god himself? That at least is my perception, knowing myself that the carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God. (Rm. 8:7)