I will prove to you that God exists

[Paleophyte]

Emergent behaviors that lead from a simple set of basic rules to complex behaviors are favoured by thermodynamics because they're a more efficient mechanism for achieving stable low-energy, high-entropy states more rapidly. These emergent behaviors favour the emergence of life and sentience. The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

3. Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. This means that heat spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold object, not the other way around.
The rules of thermodynamics leads to more disorder, not more complexity.

It's hilarious that you're asking Google to make your arguments for you AND you're too lazy or dumb to strip the code from your post.

The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

Have you written a thesis on this to straighten out actual scientists who make a living doing science? 

No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

Where or when did the simple set of basic rules come into play?

Every fundamental force that you've blathered about. What do you think these very simple numbers are?!? Look up emergent behaviours.

Is E=MC^2 a simple rule or the dozens of formulas and equations we extracted from mindless natural forces?

Yes, it's a simplification of the more complete equation made for public consumption. It also isn't a fundamental force.

The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself?

Thank you for making my argument for me? Really not sure what you're trying to achieve with this. Let me simplify for you:

Step 1: Start with some very simple rules, aka fundamental forces.
Step 2: Repeat those rules over and over again.
Step 3: More complex behaviours arise from the system. That's called "emergence".
Step 4: Emergent behaviours are favoured by thermodynamics because they leads to more stable low-energy, high-entropy states more efficiently.
Step 5: Go back to Step 2 with the new emergent rules and do the Rinse, Lather, Repeat thing again.
Step 6: Yet more rules emerge from the emergent rules. Cool! Look at how these really simple fundamental constants give rise to mind-numbingly complex behaviours like relativity and quantum mechanics.
Step 7: If you let the system run for long enough then it gets complex enough to start asking pesky questions. Sentience is just an emergent property of biology, biology an emergent property of chemistry, and chemistry an emergent property of physics.

Conclusion: Regardless of the starting parameters, so long as you have sufficient time and a few basic rules you'll end up with a system that questions its own existence. Your "narrow parameters" are only necessary for our particular variety of sentience. Your argument is entirely anthropocentric and lacking of a broader view. This explains why you needed a universe 93 billion lightyears in diameter to produce one simpleton that couldn't get the joke.