http://www.pinkmonkey.com

The world surrounding us is organized, coherent and sophisticated. It also has evolved in a way that life can appear in it and humans can roam at least the planet earth. The history of the universe also shows that at the side, a path to more organization and sophistication has been followed. From elementary particles to hydrogen and helium atoms and heavier elements, from simple inorganic molecules to complex organic ones, the history of our world is full of wonders. These wonders create lots of questions. Why out of all of the possibilities the world followed such a sophisticated path and why it should be so compassionately hospitable to human beings? Why?
One of the possible answers is called Weak Anthropic Principle. It states that for us being here, all of the complexity established during the history of universe had to take place. If it didn't we wouldn't be here. Because it happened as it happened, we are here and can ask the questions we ask. In any other kind of history we could not exist today to ask. So although such a history has been very improbable and remote, it happened and we are here today.
The other answer is called Strong Anthropic Principle. It states that in order for the cosmos to be as it is, somehow it requires the influence of an observer. Religion advocates normally use this kind of interpretation. But there are scientific extrapolations using this principle as well. One of the views speculates that the macro world that we are observing is that portion of reality that we can see, measure and have the knowledge about. The actual reality is deeper and exists in quantum level in superposition of states. We, according to our state of mind can see a portion, which suits us. So in a way we may say that without us the universe does not exist as we see it.
The other possible solution is what Martin Rees names it multiverse option. It proposes multi-universes, which can melt and transform to each other and we are living in one of them, which is hospitable to life. This is almost impossible to prove or disapprove. This solution seems more imaginary than a scientific theory.
None of the above answers offers a strong argument. In my opinion, the problem is, we confine ourselves to space-time and limit the physical laws to it. Because of this, many problems remain unsolved or we have to travel far to the outskirts of logic, in order to offer an explanation for them.
It is understandable if scientists try to avoid theological approach to reality. That kind of approach is not scientific or logical. However, avoiding a big portion of reality, just because we are afraid that it may be interpreted as presence of God, is not acceptable either. I do not understand how developing theories, which include out of our space-time elements, can disprove science. Are we scared of unknown just like fifteenth century priests? Are we hiding in our caves? I believe, understanding the laws of entity beyond our space-time are attainable and we do not have to refer to God of the Gaps to find a solution for our questions.
We have enough scientific means to explore the out of universe entity and build theories in the basis of dual nature of existence. Maybe we need to look for the answers in such a dual setting.