The sun is well-suited to emit light and heat. Could that really be an accident?
Talk about begging the question...
As far as we know right now, life in our immediate cosmic neighborhood exists only on a strip of the Earth's surface a few miles thick. Let's be generous and assume this strip to be 200 miles thick. Let BS—BioSphere— stand for the volume (in cubic miles) of this strip. Then
BS = 156,861,815,589 cubic miles
Now, aside from our Sun, the next nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, is about 5 light years away (roughly 6 trillion miles). Let PC stand for the volume (in cubic miles) of the sphere of space centered on the Earth with radius 5 light years. Then
PC = 1.131 x 1041 cubic miles
The ratio of BS to PC gives the relative volume of space occupied by life in a sphere of radius 5 light years centered on the Earth:
BS / PC = 1.4 x 10-30
or
BS / PC = .000000000000000000000000000000014
To say this in words, life occupies no more than about
14 billionths of a trillionth of a trillionth
of the spatial volume in a sphere of radius 5 light years centered on the Earth.
And, of course, when we take into account the fact that a sphere of radius 5 light years contains essentially no spatial volume at all when compared to the spatial volume of the entire visible cosmos (and even less when compared to the spatial volume of our entire inflationary bubble), we begin to get an inkling of just how exiguous life appears to be within the vast scheme of things.
From this point of view, it does seem a bit odd to say that "[t]he universe seems uncannily well suited to the existence of life". If it were so well suited to life, one would think that life would occupy much more of it. Energy is ubiquitous in the universe, life appears to be at the other extreme (as far as we now know).
As a snide aside, let me point out that, using the ordinary acceptations of the acronyms BS and PC, the ratio of BS to PC seems to be pretty nearly 1. But I'll defer a more detailed examination of that ratio to another day.