How do Christian advocates of the Fine Tuning argument for God's existence address the objection posed by the Anthropic Principle?

> The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. **Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations**. **Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.** > > There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail. The weak anthropic principle (WAP), as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias). Most such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes from which to select. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning. Carter distinguished the WAP from the strong anthropic principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. A form of the latter known as the participatory anthropic principle, articulated by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, thus implying one or more observers. Stronger yet is the final anthropic principle (FAP), proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which views the universe's structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal. > > Source: [Anthrophic principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) In essence, when theists marvel at the remarkable fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe, which enables the existence of intelligent conscious life, and suggest that this remarkable phenomenon demands an explanation (such as an intelligent designer), proponents of the anthropic principle often argue differently. They suggest that such fine-tuning isn't actually surprising—after all, we inevitably find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life because, otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ponder it. If circumstances were different, we wouldn't exist, but since we do, it's not unexpected that the universe possesses conditions conducive to our existence. Does this effectively counter the fine-tuning argument for God's existence? How do Christian proponents of this argument address such objections? --- **Note**: Personally, I don't think so. See [Does the "sniper analogy" undermine the Anthropic Principle objection to the fine-tuning argument for God's existence?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111278/66156)