There is truth to that, although only if you don’t have a model to base your probability claims on. Indeed, we don’t have an established model for determining the probability of the physical constants of our particular universe. I’ve commented on this before, e.g.:
Hi Brad, thanks for sharing! I agree with part of @Hans.Halvorson ’s sentiment. For example, he says:
“There’s a deep problem lurking in the background of the fine-tuning argument, which rests on two factual claims. One is that a life-conducive universe exists. And the second is that this kind of universe is improbable. It’s the second fact that is responsible for the resurrection of the design argument, and fine-tuning advocates are so focused on using it as a premise that they’ve failed to see that it needs explanation.”
As human beings we have only experienced one “shot” of the gun (our own universe), so we have no way of knowing what was in the other chambers or whether there even were any other chambers to begin with. That makes it impossible for human beings to know for sure what kind of universe is likely or unlikely to exist. It does not matter whether that assessment of likelihood is based on theological or on scientific considerations.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with how Hans uses this revolver analogy to turn fine-tuning into something negative:
"An analogy here might be apt. Suppose that you’re captured by an alien race whose intentions are unclear, and they make you play Russian roulette. Then suppose that you win, and survive the game. If you are convinced by the fine-tuning argument, then you might be tempted to conclude that your captors wanted you to live. But imagine that you discover the revolver had five of six chambers loaded, and you just happened to pull then trigger on the one empty chamber. The discovery of this second fact doesn’t confirm the benevolence of your captors. It disconfirms it. The most rational conclusion is that your captors were hostile, but you got lucky."
This description has elements of randomness and lack of control which are not applicable to the creative act of an almighty, omniscient God. In any case, minute fine-tuning won’t make the Creator look any worse. For me, fine-tuning is still interesting because it says something about the intricacy of Creation and the apparent fragility of its beautiful complexity (including us). But I do not dare to make any statement on how likely or unlikely this complexity is because we have only a single “experiment” to observe.
I believe we should avoid all appeals to “probability” when we talk about fine-tuning. That would clear up most of the confusion.
Also, I wrote a blog post on BioLogos about it:
In his book Signposts to God, Peter Bussey presents a fine-tuning argument for God's existence, but Casper Hesp argues that his way of presenting the argument is not “fine-tuned” enough to do the job.