The question is whether it is more reasonable to infer the existence of a fine-tuner to produce a product that exhibits fine-tuning or whether this happened by random chance or necessity. The random chance hypothesis is so unfathomably improbable it would be unreasonable to suggest that chance is the best explanation.

 The conclusion follows logically from the premises.  This gets us to an extremely intelligent mind. The amount of information, the balance of this information content expressed in physics, and the mathematical language of physics require an explanation and the best explanation, based on our experience, is that a mind was causally antecedent to the information we observe. Thus, the evidence of the fine-tuning we observe, the values of constants and laws of nature, is much, much more likely under the hypothesis that there is a fine-tuner.