The truth of fine tuning

Why is this obvious? There are claims by physicists that with a large enough number of possible sets of laws, forms of “life” would arise, or things organized enough to “surprise” us. Not necessarily life in the form we know, but things of the same level of complexity. At the very least, they claim that we have no good way of knowing that this wouldn’t happen with other sets of laws. Where exactly do you think they are wrong?

Because it's clear. If someone states otherwise, I have nothing to add. Anyone who says that something complex was created by chance and sees this as reasonable can also say that -2+3=-11.

This is not true. What you define as ”complex” is completely subjective. If you walk down the street and see the letter A carved into the ground, you will be sure that it was created by man, but snowflakes (which under a microscope have a very complex shape) will not be considered by you to be necessarily created by man.
See Professor Aviezer's refutation on the matter
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=yLruOc_oujQC&lpg=PA53&hl=iw&pg=PA58#v=twopage&q&f=false

I didn't read it. If you want to write an argument, write it.
There is a clear definition of complexity, and it is really not in the eyes of the beholder. The second law of thermodynamics defines it well.
Snowflakes were created not by man but by God.

This argument purports to prove the existence of a God who created the world because the world is complex and could not have been created by itself. If you claim that snowflakes were created by God, you are assuming the desired thing and therefore this argument is worthless from the start.

The rebuttal, in short, is this: “Complex” is a subjective definition, we attribute meaning to what we see and feel based on the knowledge and experience we have accumulated during our lives. What seems “complex” to us may appear meaningless to another. It is a matter of angles and equipment, as with snowflakes.

Okay, I see that a short lesson in logic is needed here.
The physico-theological argument is based on the assumption that something improbably complex was created by chance. The complexity in question is objectively defined (low entropy). The claim that entropy does not decrease on its own but with a deliberate hand is the second law of thermodynamics. This is the logic underlying the physico-theological argument. It is not based on observations or on last year's snowflakes, but on considerations of probability or plausibility (see the end for the difference). For example, living beings are incredibly complex in a completely objective way, since their entropy is much lower than inanimate objects. This is not in the eyes of the observer. Therefore, their formation requires explanation.
Now you claim that complexity is a subjective matter. This is of course a mistake. If it were a subjective matter, there would be no law in physics that prohibits a decrease in entropy in a closed system (without the involvement of a deliberate hand). Physical quantities (like entropy) have an objective definition, otherwise physics would be in the eye of the beholder.
You add and claim that a snowflake is also complex and yet created itself. This argument of yours attempts to refute the physico-theological argument. To this I replied that it does not refute it because the guiding hand (God) is also at the foundation of the snowflake. Note that I do not assume this as the basis for my proof. The proof is a priori, as I explained above. I bring this as a rebuttal to your argument from the snowflake. My argument is that it does not refute the existence of God since God also made it. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the assumption being sought here.

And one more final note. Your argument from the snowflake can be interpreted in two ways: 1. The snowflake is not complex (despite appearances), since it was created itself. 2. The snowflake is complex and yet it is self-generated, hence evidence that complex things can be created on their own.
Meaning 2 contradicts the laws of physics and probability. Your language implies that you mean meaning 1 (that complexity is in the eye of the beholder). But this also contradicts the laws of physics, since there are objective measures of complexity. Low entropy. Now you must decide whether your claim is that the formation of snowflakes contradicts the laws of physics, or whether your claim is that they are not complex and therefore not evidence for the subject under discussion (because life is complex).

And one more clarification. The physico-theological argument is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. I use entropy to define complexity, but I do not claim that the formation of life, for example, contradicts the laws of physics. There are different explanations for how life is created without a guiding hand. For example, that their entropy comes at the expense of entropy from the environment. Even if this is true, it meets the laws of thermodynamics, but not philosophical logic (which rules out the accidental formation of complex things like life, even if it is at the expense of the environment). Therefore, it is a philosophical and not a scientific argument. This is what I meant above when I distinguished between probability and likelihood. Probability underlies the second law of thermodynamics, but likelihood belongs to philosophy.

The “philosophical logic” that denies the accidental creation of complex things, is completely subjective because what seems to you like gibberish on a piece of paper that was probably created randomly will seem to another person like a sentence in their native language that was necessarily written by another person.
The snowflake argument is not an argument on a scientific level, but on a philosophical level, its purpose is to show that what seems to us intuitively to be something that was created randomly and is devoid of complexity can in fact be very complex.

I may not be the sharpest pencil in the pencil case, but even I understand what is being said to me after two or three explanations. There is no need to repeat myself a fourth time. For the same reason, I also see no need to subtract a fourth time from the answer I gave.
All the best.