In “The Fine-Tuning Design Argument; A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God” Robin Collins offers the teleological argument. His argument can be understood as follows.
1. The fine-tuning data are not improbable under Theism.
2. The fine-tuning data are very improbable under atheism.
3. If some evidence is not improbable on hypothesis A but very improbable on hypothesis B, then that evidence provides strong evidence for hypothesis A.
4. Therefore, the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheist hypothesis.

The argument is valid; however, the objection of other forms of life seems to stand. What I mean is that “as far as we know, other forms of life could have existed even if the parameters of physics were different.” (Collins 1998) Collins reasons in a way that if specific fine-tuning data was even slightly off, then no life at all could exist. He gives the example of nuclear force, saying if it were slightly different, the only atom that could exist is hydrogen. Because we have no evidence that hydrogen atoms by themselves can create life, we, therefore, have reason to believe that they cannot, and consequently, fine-tuning is the only way life is possible. I, however, have a question for the theist. Do you believe in souls? If yes, what are souls made of? It seems that if they are composed of atoms then they could not exist. However, Theists usually describe souls as immaterial. The soul is thought of as some form of life. After all, the soul remains after death in what they call the ‘afterlife.’ As a result, if one believes in souls, then one must believe that life can exist without fine-tuning. Here is an argument in standard form.

1. If a theist believes in souls, then they must believe in possible life without fine tuning.
2. Theists believe in souls.
3. Therefore, theists must believe in possible life without fine tuning. (MP 1,2)

This argument aims as an objection to premise one of Collin's argument. It seems that while fine-tuning could occur under theism, we have no reason to believe it is likely. God could have created the universe in any way possible because our souls could exist non-materially. Even if hydrogen atoms were the only atoms to exist, our soul would remain and perhaps interact with the universe differently. We consider the world to be fine-tuned because we exist. However, if we are our souls, we could continue to exist without this specific fine-tuning. As long as the soul exists, we could consider the universe to be fine-tuned. However, if what is fine-tuned (the laws and physics of the universe) does not affect the existence of souls, then there is no reason to think that the universe is fine-tuned. To be clear, It seems Collins' argument implies that our existence implies the fine-tuning of the laws and physics of the universe. However, if we are souls, then the laws and physics do not affect our existence, and therefore the fine-tunedness of the universe could be random or non-existent. Further, this is not an objection towards God's existence because perhaps souls can prove that. Instead, this is an objection to the premise that fine-tuning is probable under theism; hence the fine-tuning argument is unsound.