My point being that if you do not think that the universe was deliberately fine tuned to be conducive for life, then there's no point in arguing over why the settings are conducive to life. You didn't say that exact phrasing, but it is what you are saying; that the universe is tuned such that life may exist in it. If you're not claiming that, then why are you claiming that a creator is necessary?
If the universe is not specifically designed to hold life, no creator is necessary by your argument, yes?
But this is all more or less irrelevant. If we were to go back to the earliest moments of the universe, all forces (gravity, Weak nuclear force, Strong nuclear force, and Electromagnetism) were all unified as a single individual force, and over time diverged as the universe cooled, still reflecting aspects of the initial force, despite reflecting different aspects of it. So what you should be concerned about is not the strength of the strong nuclear force, as that is not something that is defined by the initial state of the universe, but with the initial Unified Force, as that is the only force that existed in the initial state of the universe. Since all the other forces are directly related to each other via that unified force, changing one independently of the others is nonsense.
In fact, unless it can be demonstrated that the Unified force could have any value other than the value it had, whatever it was, there is no point in debating about it, as nobody has any clue.