This isn't a very interesting question (no offense). For me it doesn't go far back enough to the foundation. Sure, there could have been slight changes that would change everything (except the core of physics) so what Matt said is true. Its pointless to ask why, because the simple fact of us being able to ask the question is kind of the answer to the question.

"I'm here because I can ask why I'm here," if you will. That may be circular reasoning, but in the context of the argument, that's as far as you need to go. At least in my opinion anyways.

The truly interesting question for me is one that science will never be able to explain...ever. Maybe you can try and prove me wrong, but from what I've heard from scientists, they've had to dodge this question.

If the universe also began in a sort of primordial state, where it was either smaller than it is now (relative to what? maybe it would be more accurate to say that relative to infinite space, all of matter was compacted into a tiny sphere), or literally nothing existed which became something, you're just begging the question. Where did this more basic universe come from? Something more basic? Where did that come from? Eventually it will all have to lead back to nothing. Saying it was always there is a cop out. You can say time keeps circling back on itself, but then why is there even time at all? Or to say that the probability of the existence of anything is 100% in this case also begs the question, where did probability come from? To say that it always existed is simply to take for granted its existence.

That's all I have to say, I don't want to hijack the discussion so you can continue on if you please.

However, it didn't seem to me that in JCL's original post, he was talking about changing constants. He was simply asking what if conditions hadn't been just right. Which definately is different than asking what it would mean if the physical laws of our universe were different, but I could be wrong about who said what.