Most any physicist can explain the improbabilities to you.
There are a number of physical constants in nature that if varied by a very small percentage would make life impossible. They would make the stars and atomic elements impossible, many of them.
An example of 6 of the cosmological constants are 'N (1x10^36) which defines the strength of electrical forces. E (epsilon= 0.07) defines strength of atomic nuclei bonding. Omega defines the ratio of expansion energy to gravity of all matter. Lambda, a new force, cosmic anti-gravity, which controls rate of universal expansion. Q, a ratio of 2 energies, which determines the texture of structure in our universe. D, is the number of dimensions = 4.
There are other comsological and physical constants however that can be just as important. I think Dr. Rees left them out for simplicity. The improbabilities were already near infinite.
Let's just take those 6 in particular. These 6 numbers, according to Dr. Rees (author of "6 Numbers" a book describing the multiverse theory) constitute a recipe for our universe. "If any one of them became "untuned" by only a small percentage (less than 10%) there would be no stars and no life."
Professor of Physics at Univ of Delaware, Dr. Barr, wrote the book "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith" and shows that statistically that atheistic, materialistic explanations of the universe have far less credibility than a theistic answer. Barr provides a rational argument why God is a credible concept in science.
On the atheistic side of the argument is Dr. Rees who also agrees with Dr. Barr that it is improbable that the universe is simply a singular random universe that just happenes to have the right stuff for life.
Dr. Rees postulated the theory of the "multiverse" to try to come up with a way to deal with the huge improbability of it all, since he could not consider the possibility of God (a simpler solution). His theory states that there are an infinite number of universes and ours is the ONE universe which happens to have the right numbers for those parameters.
Dr. Rees believes it would take an almost infinite number of turns of 6 random number generators before they came up with the right combination for a universe to exist in a way that supports life. The probability of life actually evolving, once the universe is suitable for life, is a whole other set of improbabilities! (anthropomorphic probabilities)
Scientific materialism of the 19th century is dead. Atheists can no longer rely on science to support their case, the reverse is becoming true. Scientific materialism has been killed by the startling results of 20th century science.
This is hocus pocus. There is no basis for this...
I already pointed out to you the flaw in this argument back on 12/22, and asked you to support your shaky and unsupported assumption, if you could. You failed to respond. Why are you now reposting the same argument while pretending that its inherent fallacy has not already been called to your attention?
Ahem, that would be "life as we currently know it". Which is something very different than "impossible". Your assertion is premised on your conclusion.
The vast majority of other parameterizations for the universe will allow mathematically equivalent constructions of life, which is about as close a comparison one can make as mapping some kind of physical equivalence between differently parameterized universes is meaningless on many levels.
You cannot make a martini if you are given beer as your only ingredient, but the beer will give you a buzz just the same.