Even if you could prove deism tomorrow, all of your work would still be ahead of you, since a deistic creator does not give meaning or purpose to the universe, nor does it prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
Scientists have been aware of the fine tuning argument for a long time, but not only does it NOT prove theism, it makes us ask 'what is the alternative'?
The alternative is a universe where intelligent life cannot exist, and therefore cannot question it's own existence, so it's really a circular argument.
It’s no more a circular argument than to say you clicked the send button because you wanted to reply to my comment, and you wanted to reply to my comment because you hit the send button.
How does naturalistic science explain the existence of language?
(It cannot and is therefore insufficient to explain ultimate reality.)
How can the tomb have been empty if there was no resurrection?
Why would the disciples change from depressed and hopeless in the days immediately after the crucifixion to suddenly being inspired to live a life of poverty, torture and solitary execution?
Why would the enemy, Saul of Tarsus, convert?
Why would skeptics like James convert?
How could a religion explode from a handful of followers to many thousands within the space of just a few years, in the face of relentless and murderous persecution by the Roman government?