The problem with the fine tuning argument is that the universe doesn't need fine tuning to create matter or life. Even if we moved the earth several thousands of kilometers away from the sun or closer to it, it wouldn't make much of a difference to life. Even if it was a lot closer, it may have put different types of pressures on life forms so it would've looked different but it still would've made life possible.
Life, once started, is enormously hard to kill. The universe is big, so big that even the most improbable things will happen all the time. And the fine tuning argument fails as we have had several extinction events throughout the earth's history, if the earth was fine tuned for life, those wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be on the brink right now (on the geological timescale). Go see a natural history museum and see for yourself.
Fine tuning seems probable because it seems evolution has 'intelligently' shaped our bodies to survive. But therein lies the fallacy, if it were different we wouldn't have survived and we wouldn't be able to ask the question. Or we would've been shaped different, life, after all, adapts and even then we would still accept the status quo as being 'fine tuned'. Evolution fine tunes our bodies through continuous adaptation and rejects most adaptations for being unfit, those adaptation simply die so the only successful ones seem fine tuned but they simply are adapted to the current circumstances.
If everything was fine tuned for life, we wouldn't have such chaos, death and natural disasters.