Argument from planning – several questions

Hello Rabbi.
The argument from design has always caught my attention. It has always seemed very intuitive to me, and even one of the atheist “rabbis” defined this argument as “the strongest argument of the other side.” Admittedly, in my opinion there are some not-so-simple questions about it, some of which I have heard about and some of which I have thought about myself, and I would be happy to hear your opinion on the matter. I hope this is not an undue burden on the rabbi.
1. I understood that all that is needed is a match between all the values. That is, maybe a certain force should be x, but only that another force should be y. If both were to change accordingly, life would still be possible. For example: Force A must be twice as strong as Force B in order for life to be created. Today, Force B is 100, so A must be 200 in order for life to be created. Then they say: What is the chance that there will actually be 200 out of all the numbers? But in fact, this is a scam: all that is needed is a match between the two values ​​(A is twice B), and therefore there are an infinite number of such match possibilities. So the chance of this is perhaps low, but not that low.
2. In addition to all of this, there may be many more sets of values ​​(that are compatible with each other) that would make life possible and we are not aware of them.
3. It is possible that other combinations of values ​​could have created other complex things that are not alive, something we are unable to imagine. So maybe life seems amazing to us, and the chance of its existence is low, but there are many other amazing things that could exist under other rare conditions.
4. We wouldn’t attribute anything supernatural to an improbable event in everyday life, so why would we here? For example, if I roll a die and get 6’s 100 times in a row, and after rigorous laboratory tests it turns out that it’s a perfectly normal die, would you say that this is a supernatural cause?
5. This is usually presented as something binary: either it’s a random draw of data, or there’s a deliberate hand here. Since the draw is completely improbable, it turns out it’s a deliberate hand. But maybe there’s a third option (even if we haven’t thought of anything specific right now)?
6 Today we are talking about the “multiverse” theory that produces an infinite number of universes, each with values ​​that have been drawn in it. So somewhere out of the infinite universes there will be a universe with life. It is even expected. And if you say “there is no evidence for such a universe,” you are saying “there is no evidence for God.” Then we actually have two unproven theories that can explain the rarity of the universe’s values. Although both explain through new and unfamiliar things, the multiverse theory is much more economical and therefore preferable. And if you say “there are other proofs for God,” then what is this proof worth in the first place? It turns out that this proof is either rejected or irrelevant.
There are a considerable number of questions here, so I apologize in advance for the inconvenience. I would be happy to hear the Rabbi’s opinion. With thanks and appreciation.