Recently, some philosophers have provided renewed defences of the cosmological fine-tuning argument for God's existence (FTA). The ethos of these defences is well-summarized by Hawthorne and Isaacs (2018: 136), by claiming that FTA is 'as legitimate an argument as one comes across in philosophy'. This paper has called the above claim into question. As I have argued, there is no reason to think that FTA can establish even a modest claim about evidential favouring-the claim that the fine-tuning **data** favours (even slightly) the designer hypothesis over its alternatives.