Anthropic Principle: Not really anthropic at all?
I have commonly seen theists use the anthropic principle to defend the belief in a creator and to attempt to justify the idea that this being created the universe with life in mind.
I have yet to see this argument against this principle being used for said purposes and I would like to hear some answers to this idea by those who might better know the anthropic principle than I. I am familiar with other arguments that supply possibilities of parallel universes and such but I am curious if there actually is a fatal error in the very basis of this principle that has clearly arisen due to an obvious presupposition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.
I have heard many of the specifics regarding this principle and the cosmological constants that were supposedly "fine-tuned" for life, but I have not found any rational reason as to why these specifics actually show an intention of life. All I have seen are many scenarios where, if these constants were slightly changed, there would be a lack of stars and diversity of elements. These are indeed necessary for life, but why would they show at all that some creator intended to create life? If there truly is a God behind the creation of our universe, then why must we be the main attraction? This God would more likely be concerned with all the amazing gigantic (relative to us) formations and such that are created due to a diverse range of elements and stars that are able to create many of the elements necessary for these formations to occur. So how is the cosmological aspect of the anthropic principle anthropic at all? Is there a specific scenario of cosmological constant fiddling that could show a true intention of life that I missed?