I think you meant "teleological argument", not "ontological argument".
BTW, I would like to see Tony's take on the anthropic principle. I'm not sure that I buy Lawrence Krauss' explanation specifically, but it does have an appealing simplicity to it. I agree with Leonard Susskind's take on it, that the anthropic principle may well be correct, but it runs the risk of becoming a thought-terminating cliche. If there is a physical reason why physical constants are what they are, then we should find out why.
Yes, I addressed this back a few pages in more detail but the anthropic principle fails as a device to explain the fine tuning because it simply says, Since we would not be here to discover that life didn't exist, we should not be surprised to find life existing when we are here. But it is not that we should be surprised that we are here in this particular universe that demands an explanation, but that any life permitting universe would exist.
String theorists have calculated that there are at least 10 to the 500 possible universes of any kind using the laws of nature with different values and different constants.
Examples; Paul Davies calculated that a change in the weak force or in gravity by one part in 10 to the 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe. Hawkings calculated that during the early expansion of the universe that a change decrease in the rate of one part in one hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapse very early, before life could develop. And a similar increase would have precluded galaxies. The cosmological constant is fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120, otherwise life would not exist. These numbers are bigger than the number of particles in the universe.
But even further, Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of the special low entropy conditions by chance is one part in 10 to the 30 to the 123, a number so big we cannot even put an analogy to it.
So, the question is not why this universe exists, but why any life permitting universe would exist? The anthropic principle is often analogized to be like the lottery. Some person has to win and that person, after winning cannot claim a miracle because even though the chances were low, once they won, it is not a miracle whatsoever.
But this is more like filling the universe with black ping pong balls and 5 white ping pong balls and mixing them up randomly. Then, go out and pick a ball, find it is white, randomly pick another, find it is white, another, white... five times. At that point, it makes sense to conclude that the lottery is fixed from the onset for white balls. The white balls are the life permitting universes and the black balls are the non-life permitting. It's not that any ball was picked, but that only white balls were picked. That is different than the lottery and anthropic principles.
The discovery of fine tuning is not dismissible as silly or logically flawed, it is evidence for either chance, necessity or design. Chance and necessity are not feasible so design has to be accepted as the most plausible answer.
And once again, I am not talking about other universes with different laws of nature, only different universes with different values and/or constants to the laws of nature we have now. Other universes are irrelevant in the discussion.
Krauss appealed to the quantum vacuum as the source of an infinite number of universes. First, this is simply a mistake. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. It is part of the actual universe and within the quantum vacuum, there is energy which bounces to matter and back to energy. It is not "nothing."
He said, every time you have nothing, you will get a universe. that leads to absurdity as discussed prior. (See page 12 http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=2312&start=165 )But it shows the lengths those who have faith in materialism will go to justify the non-existence of God.