Many theists and atheists agree that the fine-tuning argument is the most compelling argument for the existence of God. However, there are many different versions of this argument and, as with most things in life, some versions are better than others. In this paper I will respond to Neil A. Manson’s recent critique of what I call the Bayesian Version of the Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s existence. I will argue that the Bayesian version is a relatively poor argument but that the Abductive Version of the Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s existence is quite compelling
