This fact is often recognized by specialists.1 There are multiple ways to make the point, but consider one way as argued for here by philosopher-physicist Robin Collins:
When scientists investigate and measure how things work in the world, they accumulate “data points,” like these, and they look to discern patterns in nature and thereby discover the natural laws which can be used for future predictions.
We can represent the simplified example pattern by this simple purple line which will be described by a simple mathematical function (those equation-like things we all had to learn in physics class).
And if you’ll look at these three new highlighted dots, this simple functional law has allowed us to extrapolate from the past or examined data to make predictions about future or unexamined data.
But here is the problem for naturalism: this whole endeavor requires the all-important assumption that the laws of nature are simple and elegant. For example: deficiencies in our measuring instruments, make it normal for the functional line to not precisely go through every data point, even though those points are our measurements.
Since that’s what we measure, technically, an ugly complex law, like this blue function, fits our data better. But naturalists won’t accept the blue line, because they go in expecting simplicity and elegance in nature. Like the purple law.
In a similar vein to the argument above, imagine setting the Y-Axis as the value of the gravitational constant, and the X-Axis as time. If the law describing gravity is simple, then the constant will remain. . . constant (as predicted by the purple law). But it does not have to be simple. If the strength of the constant changed tomorrow, again, all that would mean is that the law governing gravity is a more like a complex blue law.
Irregardless of technology, as the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate the distant objects currently observable (carried by light) will start disappearing from view (as we start diverging faster than light). So if we arrived here any later in cosmic history, we would have a sub-optimal view of the universe (obviously if we had arrived earlier the universe would have been smaller with much less to see).
Scientific American '08: We are led inexorably to a very strange conclusion. The window during which intelligent observers can deduce the true nature of our expanding universe might be very short indeed. [Lawrence Krauss, The End of Cosmology? An accelerating universe wipes out traces of its own origins (2008)]