This is kind of depressing if you think about the implications (that 'you' might not have existed, actually a very tough thing to comprehend, if it is possible to comprehend), but 2 things lead me to disagree with you ShijeFace,
1: the universe is sooo big that I believe that if life had not come about here it would have arisen somewhere else and probably has. There is sooo much matter, energy, and space that there must be somewhere else where life has come to exist even if the conditions under which it was created are not the same as here ; and
2: if we accept evolution as valid and accept it as a process whereby biological 'machines' fit themselves to their environment, then saying that it is unlikely that the conditions for us to exist exactly as we are highly unlikely is ignoring one of the most important and beautiful things about life, that it will adapt to live in its environment as best it can.
1st note: Basically my argument breaks down to: The universe is sooo big that ..somewhere.. the parts of 'the watch' (assuming an infinite or near-infinite number of 'watches' like an infinite or near-infinite amount of matter in the universe), somewhere, a watch must have come together in a way that worked.
2nd note: It seems that we may have different views of what we consider 'life', correct me if I am wrong, you consider life, exactly what has arisen and what we can see today. I think my interpretation of 'life' is anything (a biological 'machine') that:
consumes energy, grows, reproduces, maintains homeostasis, and adapts to its environment. (Reacting to its environment would be a necessity of interorganismal interactions)
Please post arguments supporting or refuting this, argument is the only way to grow intellectually