We can dispense with most of the notions you elucidate. Starting with the last, the “computer simulation” theory doesn’t actually answer anything because it’s merely a pointless regression. If we were the product of a simulation then the question becomes: why is the universe in which the simulation was created just right for life?

The same regression is evident in the “god made it” idea: it’s another pointless regression because then we must ask why the universe permits the existence of one or more invisible magical creatures?

As we already know the laws of physics aren’t teleological, the “happens for a reason/meant to be” notion is likewise not only empty but embarrassingly silly.

It’s odd you don’t mention the notion of eternal inflation, which is presently popular among certain members of the physics community as it accounts not only for our own universe but for all possible universes, the vast majority of which will be unsuitable for any form of organized cellular structures. Nor do you mention the search for a unified field theory, which would (if possible to arrive at) would show why our particular universe isn’t as implied in your article an astonishing collection of “just so” variables but rather the necessary outcome of a small number of fundamental laws. We’re nearly there, in fact — many of the “fine tuned parameters” you mention are in fact inter-related — but there’s no guarantee this will be achieved.

Meanwhile, anthropocentric speculation doesn’t really get us anywhere, especially when a lot of what we do know (for example, the square law relationship common among the various forces arises from the fact we exist in three spatial dimensions) reduces the apparent puzzle of our existence.