All you’re telling me is that you refuse to consider any explanations that are not naturalistic/materialistic. That’s a dogmatic position, not a logical one.
The fine-tuning evidence shows that the likelihood of a naturalistic i.e. randomly-generated universe being capable of the kind of complex chemistry that supports life is staggeringly low, yet here we are. Given that naturalism cannot explain it, what alternative explanation would you propose?

Anyway I am not sure I can say more and nice chatting.

Hi, thanks for you replies. I don’t pretend to understand Bayes Theorem but I don’t understand your objection to T (theism) either – you simply assert it is an invalid hypothesis without saying why.
The argument is simply that if naturalism (i.e. chance) is an extremely unlikely explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, then the explanation is Something Else that’s isn’t naturalism i.e. some kind of super-natural agency. Call it theism or deism, or hyper-dimensional alien super-intelligences if you like.