I am just excited that you showed up :-)

So, in your last response to me you asked specifically for my defense of these 2 premises...

2. Evidence Y1 shows no one else could fine tune the universe other than God.
3. Evidence Y2 shows that fine tuning the universe unintentionally is nearly impossible

No problem.

There are a couple of options for defending premise 2.
1. I could retreat and say something like "God is the most likely candidate for being able to fine tune the universe" and marshal the following arguments...
2. I could bring up other cosmological arguments in defense of it being a spaceless/timeless/blah blah you get the point.
3. I could point out that it would have to be intelligent, whatever it is, and that simply pushes back the question 1 more step, what made that universe finely tuned
4. I could simply ask, what else would have both the power and knowledge to create and finely tune a universe? 

It seems to me that unless you are willing to deny the physical reality of this universe, it is hard to get past the "designer" as also being a "creator of physical reality". 

Defending premise 3 would be accomplished in the same way as defending the premise that the universe with these constants/quantities would be improbable on chance. It would be improbable whether it was created or not. The improbability is only surmounted if it was intentional. 

That being said, I think this is beside the point. They might be additional objections to the argument, but I don't think they resolve the Divine Psychology issue. It seems to me we have 3 options...

1. Necessity 
2. Chance 
3. Design

Now, the question is what probabilities should we assign to each? And then we can pick the one with the best probability. For the sake of argument, we have assigned 1 and 2 very low probabilities. We have no idea what #3 is. To me it seems that we should prefer an unknown probability over a known low probabilit

@KevinScharp FWIW, I didn't mind those attacks. Craig values consistency very much in his philosophical/theological positions (as do I). If Dr. Scharp could show inconsistencies, he could press Craig on what makes it applicable in one place and not in another. All's fair in love, war and debate :-)