Your argument is invalid, as the question for the probability of the things that we know have happend is asked for the initial being of things. How many other possibilities of things to happen were there then according to the laws of nature?

Actually you are telling, don't ask, we're here, that's it, take it or leave it. Your argument is the anthropic principle in disguise und thus fails to explain anything.

I do believe that there is a causal necessity for life and even conscient life to evolve in the universe - somewhere, given the initial conditions and the way things work as described by the laws of nature. But it could have happened somewhere else in the Universe and at another time (and it probably has many times at many places) and in a different shape. The universe is so big that even a small proabilty for life to evolve will be realized somewhere in it.

But that's a total different reasoning as yours.