I'm having a good discussion about my anti-fine-tuning argument with Tyler Journeaux over at his blog, Third Millenial Templar. Which is a great name for a blog, by the way. (Reminds me of the need for better atheist nicknames.) Thanks to Grundy for pointing me to Tyler's blog.
Though a Christian, Tyler is unimpressed with Swinburne's argument for God. (Of course I agree with him here.) Tyler thinks that there are good deductive arguments for God - specifically, the cosmological argument from contingency. Now, it seems to me that even the theistic philosophers of religion have abandoned the hope for a convincing deductive argument for God (e.g. Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga - Ed Feser and William Lane Craig are the only exceptions I know of). So Swinburne's approach - a cumulative argument for God - would seem to be the only approach that has any hope of being convincing.