From Joseph R. Miller at More than Cake:
Fine Tuning has certainly advanced over the centuries, but still it is worth noting that one of the early and oft quoted critics was philosopher David Hume. However, his reasoning was fatally flawed and in a previous post I give four reasons to reject Hume’s criticism:
First, Hume’s assumption that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is itself a non-scientific assertion.
Second, Hume’s claim that science disproves a supernatural cause for nature is flawed in that he assumes the conclusion in the premise.
Third, Hume’s argument against the testimony of those who have faith is rooted, at best, in prejudice and, at worst, outright racism—not reason.
Fourth, Hume’s threshold for validating the teleological argument is absolute certainty, but this is not the test for any scientific truth. More.
Actually, there is such massive evidence of fine-tuning of our universe that arguments against it are classically far-fetched, as Miller goes on to say. The hostility is so extreme that many are willing to engage in wars against falsifiability And doom science as they know it, rather than accept the facts. At least they chose that fate; no one forced them to do it.
See also: Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence (Joseph R. Miller)
What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter? on fine-tuning
The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide