#1
"Random" can be a subjective term here but I presume you write this in conjunction with your #6?
If yes, I'd have to disagree.
#6
"Ultimate goal" is a very human-centric term. If you work out at the gym you do it to feel better, loose weight, gain strength - you do it for some goal. We basically do everything to fulfill some goal, you buy food to eat it, you eat to survive, etc but does a Star have a goal? I don't think so, neither does any other non living part of nature has a goal in my opinion. Fine tuning becomes relevant only when looking from the human perspective, I'd lean towards stating that the very idea of fine tuning is irrelevant from Star's or electron's perspective.
(I gotta start working out again btw)
#2 & #3
One could go even further and speculate that a lot of what we see in physics could be approximations of something different just like Newtonian gravity becomes spacetime curvature in GR we could find that our perception of time is just an approximation of something different... our lack of correct understanding (of time for example) prevents us from grasping "pre" t=0 properly. I put pre in quotes as the concept of "pre" probably doesn't make any sense in the context of t=0.
#5
You mean Cosmological Constant? I would say that currently it probably is zero but it's fairly possible it wasn't always zero.
#4
There seems to be so many gaps and so many plausible approximations that I have to agree.