The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism — SwampMan

I think that both versions of the teleological argument have significant flaws.

1st version:
1) What do you mean exactly by "fine-tuning data"? How does the term "fine-tuning", used normally in computer sience, apply to philosophy, and esp. in the present context? Whatever is the case, the statements involving this term can be rejected just because of the ambiguity factor.
2) "The fine-tuning data are not improbable" makes no sense grammatically: it should be either "The fine-tuning of data" or "The fine-tuned data".
3) The 1st statement, "The fine-tuning data are not improbable under theism", doesn't mean much, considering that anything is possible. But worse, there's no evident relation between such data or process and theism.
4) The 2nd statement, "The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism", is even more arbitrary..
Finally these statements are presented as facts, not as hypotheses. In the second case, they might make some sense.
At this point, I have to reject this version of teleological argument as a whole, for all of the above reasons.

2nd version:
It's a little better, because al least it is based on the hypothesis "If God exists". However,
1) The term "God" needs first to be defined or described, e.g. It is assumed that "God" is --or the term "God" refers to-- a primordial entity, existing from the beginning of time, or something similar. So, OK, let's assume that.
2) It should not to be repeated in the next statementsl; It has to be only once, at start: "It is assumed that God exists". The reason for that is evident: besides redundancy, the existence of God has to be repeatedly assumed, which creates a kind of doubt: "But isn't it already assumed that God exists?" Anyway, we can skip this weakness too.
3) The 2nd statement, "If God exists, then he is more wonderful* than the universe", is not consequential: there's no reason why this is so. I exist before a tsunami is created, but I'm not more powerful that it.. Even if it is assumed that God has created the universe --which, BTW, is anothet missing assumption!-- it doesn't ensue that He is more powerful than it. If I create a bomb, I will be not more powerful than it: it can explode at any moment and kill me!
At this point, I have to reject this version of teleological argument too as a whole, for all of the above reasons.

So, I'm really sorry, but, independently of your conclusion on the teological argument, you don't have a case. :sad:
However, you could have a case, if you had shown that these two formulations of the teleological argument are unbased, as I did.

But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. — Gnomon

No. As someone who prides himself on time management, i.e. someone lazy, why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer?

I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s — Gnomon

You and I are about the same age.

why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer? — T Clark

If cosmic questions don't tickle your impractical inquisitiveness, I'm sure you can find more practical & proximate problems to philosophize about. However, my childhood religion instilled an interest in eternity, destiny, and other quixotic quests, Ironically my intellectual curiosity was not abated, when I reasoned myself out of my puerile pre-packaged paradigm. The itch may have even increased, as I looked for a replacement frame-of-reference, from which to view the macrocosm as a whole integrated system, instead of disparate dots in the sky. The 60s opened-up many exotic possibilities, but none passed the skeptical test of plausibility. So, I passed my life with no clear worldview.

It was only after forced retirement, by the Great Recession, that I had time to really pull together all the threads I'd been gathering, into a unified science & philosophy-based understanding of how & why the world exists & evolves as it does. That is, obviously progressive, but not yet perfected. My unifying concept is the merger of a universal role for shape-shifting Information (energy, matter, mind) and the formless foundation (quantum substructure) of the sensible physical world . Together, they suggest reasonable answers to ancient cosmic questions of how and why.

Ironically, that 21st century Cosmology turned-out to be essentially the same as the allegorical guesses of those pre-scientific sages. There is something invisible-yet-essential in the world : the power to enform something from nothing, and something new from something old. Today, we call it mundane Energy, but a more cosmic term is "Enformy", which reductive scientists dismissively labelled as "Negentropy". Exploring the manifestations & implications of that generative power, brings out the detective in me.

And I'm still looking for clues at the scene of the Cosmic Creation crime : a self-aware world with a mysterious miraculous beginning, that physics has not yet explained. Perhaps, even you or I could be the humble hero to finally fill the pot-holes in this puzzle with our super-powers of Reasoning from Perception to Principle. Sorry, I'm sounding evangelical again, but that's just due to my raising. Can I get an amen? :nerd:

The invisible structure of mathematical relationships :
Did you know that mathematical reality applies in our body and in the universe? . . . What is the invisible secret of this visible structure?
https://fountainmagazine.com/2003/issue-44-october-december-2003/the-invisible-script-on-the-visible-mathematics

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BotAnd Blog Glossary