Edit: I realize you acknowledge some of these objections in your long post on the fine tuning argument. I will have to do more reading. I still stand by these criticisms though.

1) "It’s fine to examine something after its occurred and declare that its improbability is evidence for a theory."

The problem is that we only have access to one universe, so it's impossible to say how improbable something is. What's more, life is so rare (as a proportion of space and time) that it's hard to say that it's a desired outcome, so much as an unintended side effect.

2) The distinction of the royal flush metaphor is that we have direct experience of improbabilities of certain hands being dealt consecutively. We don't have that when it comes to universes. I've heard wayyyyy too many physicists (from Sean Carroll to Victor Stenger to Brian Greene) throw cold water on the design argument. Namely, Carroll points out that the probability is not crazy high, it's 1. Greene and Stenger point out that if you change one variable, sure, life collapses, but you could change multiple variables and life could/would emerge. I don't know what the answer is!

3) "But if there’s a God, values that produce life are likelier than other values, because it’s not astronomically unlikely that God would want to create life."

I don't see how you prove or verify this assertion in any way, and so, you're conclusion isn't very convincing.

4) "If Winegard was right, it would be impossible to ever get evidence for God—or for almost anything else. Imagine that the initial conditions of the universe spelled out “made by God.” Would that be evidence for God’s existence? Well, no initial condition is likelier than any other—so by Winegard’s logic, declaring this evidence for God would be question begging."

As someone who considers himself something of a strong Humean (which tbf is different from the historical humean), I'll admit that I don't think there's anything that could convince me of God's existence. But that's mainly because our brains intuit causality, we don't observe it. The problem with this quote is that God is something very special compared to everything else because of his lack of physical properties. It's not true that "it would be impossible to ever get evidence...for almost anything else." I have a cup in my hand, that's compelling and superior evidence to its existence in some capacity relative to God. Perhaps this is a fundamental disagreement between some versions of empiricism or intuitionism and probabilism.

5) "It simply notes that the constants we observe, that happen to produce complex structures, are likelier if God exists than if he doesn’t. This entails that they’re evidence for God."

Someone jump in here if I'm out of left field, but isn't this circular/question begging? You're proving God exists by postulating a conception of God (without evidence at least here - see point 3) to prove it's likely that God exists. All of which relies on a proof about the universe that isn't substantiated as of yet (see point 2). I think we're in the impasse similar to Pascal's Wager where people who presuppose one conclusion are completely convinced by it, while those who aren't aren't. My speculation is that either the probability isn't being communicated rigorously or the specific proof is not formulated rigorously. I.e the proof is either not elucidated or the probabilistic calculation doesn't have a number.

6) "The universe is likely infinite. Thus, there’s infinite life, which is exactly what one would expect given theism."

Again, I don't know how you can verify this.

7) "God has no reason not to waste space because he doesn’t face any resource constraints. He’s not like other agents."

I think I commented on your linked article why this wasn't a good metaphor. Basically efficiency and resilience are typical explanation for specific resource allocation (your business is efficient, your military should be resiliant), and I don't think either should apply to God, author of the universe and all powerful.

8) "A vast and explorable universe gives rise to great aesthetic goods. Exploring a huge cosmos is quite a valuable endeavor. "

This is a subjective taste. Even if it weren't most humans/living creatures are not going to enjoy the aesthetic goods of the explorable universe.

9) "Something likely has a designer if it has components that are set to extremely improbable values, where those values are much likelier to be set that way by an agent than by chance."

See point 1

10) "God doesn’t have any parts. He’s generally been conceived to have only one essential property that’s completely without limits."

See point 3

11) For argument 2.4, I'll admit that argument for goodness is a good one, but that's only because I'm a human, with human biology, and thus I naturally like and equate thinks I like as "good." This seems to anthropomorphic to me.

And finally, I wrote my own review of Douthat. As a sidenote, your posts have gotten much easier to read. They're always interesting, even if I disagree with you 65% of the time. joerjames3.substack.com…