This seems to be the basis of this guy's philosophy. He just can't imagine how things might be otherwise.
But I can make the same comparison that if WWII had turned out differently for my dad, then I wouldn't be here either. Where would my consciousness be? Would I be in heaven? Would I be someone else?
There is no answer to those questions, so they're worthless on their face. As is this guy's question about "the laws of physics" being just so.
It's emotional gobbledygook and worthless to base science upon.
Opponents of evolution need to stop wanting children to be taught that there is a controversy. That's obvious. Creationists need to stop using religion is scientific forums. Both groups need to solely use the evidence that contradicts macroevolution (exponential growth, the findings of human remains below dinosaur remains in the fossil record, the impossibility of the first protein to randomly form from the exact combination of 200 types of amino acids, etc.) instead of promoting alternatives.
Why do you two have such an intense hostility toward scientific inquiry? You both seem to be relegating almost all arguments opposed to yours as "not science" when this is patently untrue. It is also bizarre. Is that really the extent of your debate? Everything you two disagree with you just label as not science and then ridicule? Or if it's not that then its straw men. What absolutely arrogant elitism. I will refer to you from now on as "Secular Fundamentalists of the Arrogant Kind".
(PS - And donh? Your retreat into "symmetries at the initial singularity"? Weak, dude. Very weak. And obviously so. Especially your neglecting to back it up when asked. And hypocritical considering your argument with dsc.)