Let P be the total number of possible worlds. Let F be the total number of possible worlds that support and help produce intelligent life.
If both P and F are infinite, then, as before, nothing can be said about the probability of an F getting actualized, and the fine-tuning argument fails.
If both P and F are finite, then it is open to an atheist to propose that all P worlds actually exist, and we are in one of them. Again, the fine-tuning argument goes nowhere.
If P is infinite, and F is finite, then a much simpler argument is available, namely, from the problem of particularity.
Nor can fine-tuning help us to gain any insight into the creator’s ends. First, it is probably a fact that humans are physically the most complex and spiritually the most noble of all creatures in the universe. Perhaps, some theistic conclusions, such as that the world was made for our benefit, can be drawn from that. But the derivation of such conclusions does not require any extra information about how well or poorly the actual world is tuned.
Second, even if humans are the best sort of creatures, there is something that far exceeds them in goodness, and that is the universe as a whole that, among many other things, contains humans. Presumably, God (the Father, at least, in His capacity as Creator) loves the universe more than any item within the universe. For example, the conjunction of “the life-supporting properties of the universe” and “the planet Earth” and “the biosphere” and “the human society” may be loved more than any individual human, staying in the realm of pure reason and not taking into account redemption and sanctification.
There is certainly a sense in which the human mind commands and even owns matter, but theistic implications of this must be outlined very carefully.
In short, the fine-tuning argument is worthless.