Goldilocks Zone
The Goldilocks planet or 'Goldilocks effect' is that something must be within limits: "not too hot, not too cold, but just right".
It is taken from a children's story "The Three Bears" in which a little girl named Goldilocks finds a house owned by three bears. Each bear has their own preference of food, beds, etc. After testing each of the three items, Goldilocks determines that one of them is always too much in one extreme (too hot, too large, etc.), one is too much in the opposite extreme (too cold, too small, etc.), and one is "just right". In astrobiology, the Goldilocks zone refers to the habitable zone around a star. A planet must neither be too far away from, nor too close to a star and galactic centre to support life. Either extreme would prevent a planet evolving life. Such a planet is colloquially called a "Goldilocks planet".

Fermi paradox

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity’s lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.[1] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are: * The Sun is a typical star, and relatively young. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older. * Almost surely, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets.[2] Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life. * Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship). * Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.
According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence (see Empirical resolution attempts) elsewhere have yet been spotted in our galaxy or (to the extent it would be detectable) elsewhere in the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?"
They both suggest that there are other things out there that are unknown to humans that must have been caused by a great and powerful causer and that causer was God.

Plus - have a look at the Brian Cox weblink - Does this strengthen or weaken the design argument? Why?
I believe that it it strengthens the design argument at first because he says that if the watch didn’t work it was still designed by a creator/ designer so therefore the universe has a creator. The world has different evidence that the world was created because it is so complex and the solar system is like the inside of the watch. Even though the human eye isn’t always perfect (people wear glasses) there was still a creator. However he does begin to weaken the design argument asking is the world/universe really like a big watch. Is the world mechanical? Or is it more Organic? He brings in the Evolutionary Hypothesis which is a strong opponent that lots of people find more convincing than Payleys watch. A watch may have been built by one person or it may have been built by a whole bunch of people, so therefore it doesn’t prove a single God, enduring God so God could of made the world and died or God could of made the world and moved on. The argument doesn’t show any evidence of a good God the world does have unpleasant things in it.