Strong Anthropic Principle vs Creationism

[Esquilax]

In, as far as we know, all of them but this one, life couldn't exist. So it's less like drawing four aces and more like rolling a '1' on a billion-sided die.

"As far as we know," is a dangerous phrase. Just so long as you keep in mind that our knowledge on this issue isn't complete, so there could in fact be multiple "life" sides on that billion-sided die.

That life results is not, per se, significant - it could be any equally unlikely result - the key thing is that life appears to be very, very, very unlikely. Hence multiverse or God.

Why the false dichotomy? Multiverse or god? How about neither? Like I said, the current state of the universe, as a result, isn't necessarily significant, and so there's no need to form an explanation for why it shook out to form life, as opposed to not. There's no problem here that needs solving (in a theism/atheism debate sense, I mean. I fully accept that we should attempt to find out just as an investigative measure.)

You asked in your OP whether it takes the same sort of leaps of faith to believe in the multiverse as it does to believe in god, and my first reaction is, why believe in either? Accept them as possibilities, sure, but I don't really know why you keep bringing up the unlikelihood of life as though it entails one or the other, especially when we don't even know the likelihood of life to begin with.

Saying "who'd notice?" - yeah, I know, if we weren't there, we wouldn't be able to ask where the universe comes from. But that still ignores the infinitessimal probability that in the single instance of the universe we know of, the constants did end up in this configuration.

What's the issue you're actually having with the probability, here? Because I'm really not seeing it.