The accuacy of the cosmological constant needed to balance the forces in our universe to enable the formation of stars and planets has been calculated as 10 to the power of 120.
I curious as to what information was used to determine that. What are the other options? What constrains that cosmological constant? Can it vary? What are the other options? How many times has it been deployed? Without answers to any of these questions - and so far as I can tell there are no answers to those questions - any number is just pulled out someone's spiritual arse.
I do not have figures for the probability of the correct ingredients and environment needed for life, but even assuming we have these, professor Sir Fred Hoyle made the following calculation: “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it ...
OK, so two billion trillion stars in just our universe - and, we have no idea how many other universes are out there, some with marginally differing cosmological constants, perhaps - and those two sextillion planets in our own universe have had upwards of 12 billion years of opportunity to produce life once. With a 1 in 10
40,000 chance that's pretty good odds, to be fair, there should be dozens of life-bearing planets spread across the universes.
Even if there aren't, though, even if there's just this one universe, and just this one planet of life to be found in it, as improbable as you seem to think that is, that improbability is still not an argument for the magic that you offer as an alternative.
In the 'unlikely vs magic' debate, I'm going to pick the long odds every single time because magic isn't real.
O.