While I can find no fault with the deductive validity of this argument - the conclusion certainly seems to follow from the premises - I'm afraid this is as successful as the argument gets. Not just one, but both of the premises commit logical fallacies which they hide in the vagueness of their formulation.
It feels about time that age-old question "why is there something rather than nothing?" should notice it's old age and finally die off. While the question seemed all-important and pertinent to the ancients, what we now know about the nature of the universe renders it obsolete.
The state of the universe around us offers far more support to the hypothesis that the universe is not designed for humanity, than it does to the contrary. The universe looks exactly how we'd expect if it were not created.
To anyone who is confused about what it is exactly that theoretical physicists do, here is a brief yet broad summary of what we're trying to achieve.
If we see green apples fall from a tree every day, why should we reason inductively and conclude that every apple that falls from the tree will be green? Why not conclude instead that the next apple to fall from the tree will be red?
The universe in colour! ...or not. The object I'm focusing on today is almost completely black, it gives off virtually no radiation of any sort.
A new feature! Each week I'll post an image related to something from Physics, Philosophy or Mathematics and say a little bit about it and it's significance.
One of the most puzzling mysteries of modern day Physics is why mathematics is such a useful tool for uncovering the workings of the universe. Although mathematics has always been the only acceptable language in which to phrase serious physics, letting mathematics guide the direction of physics is a late 20th/21st century revolution in scientific thinking.