I didn't say it was a fallacy. I am saying the unstated assumption should be exposed.

It's not a formal fallacy. Rather, the question entails assumptions that have not been established as true, and any simple answer to the question is seemingly confirming. The assumption isn't even a non-sequiter, because it's not in an argument. Consider your example:

QUESTION: Fred, have your stopped beating your wife?
FRED: I don't know.

QUESTIONER (a newspaper reporter) writes: "Fred claims he doesn't know if he's stopped beating his wife! What an a-hole!"

If Fred has never beaten his wife, he should challenge the unstated assumption rather than give a simple answer.

This would imply [b]the universe is fine-tuned for life ONLY IF the
universe was intended for life. (this is the teleological assumption).
This unstated assumption makes the argument circular. [/b]

I think you're confusing terms here. It would be circular if the term "fine-tuned" assumes design. I understand the term to be be used by atheists and theists as the Goldilocks zone of physical laws as they exist in our cosmos, given their range of possibility. "fine-tuned" is not synonymous with "intelligent design". It could be termed to say planets instead of life.

It could be a product of more fundamental physics; it could be a product of quantum uncertainty, or it could be brute fact.

It could be, but we don't have the physics to explain that more simplified understanding of the cosmos. Brute fact violates PSR.

Dawkins, when pushed, was once asked to name the most compelling reason to believe in some kind of creator. He chose the fine tuning example.

For me, the fine tuning argument is faulty in many ways. Here is just one. I think it’s putting Descartes before the horse. First demonstrate a god(s) exists, then one can claim how fine tuning is used as the mechanism for life.

The claim is essentially a circumstantial evidence ploy where the evidence is actually fine tuned (ignoring how the solar system isn’t conducive to life as we know it) for a creator that is not even demonstrated.

Mike

The known laws of physics contain certain dimensionless constants. It's unknown if they could have been different, but perhaps they could.So some scientists have determined that small differences in these constants would result in a universe vastly different from this one - and consequently, life would be impossible. This would imply [b]the universe is fine-tuned for life ONLY IF the universe was intended for life. (this is the teleological assumption). This unstated assumption makes the argument circular. [/b]

It's certainly true that this universe depends on the constants being what they are (what's surprising about that?) and that life is a consequence of the universe as it exists (also no surprise ). Without the teleological assumption, the scientific question becomes: why do the constants have these values rather than other values? The answer is: we don't know. It could be a product of more fundamental physics; it could be a product of quantum uncertainty, or it could be brute fact. Sure, it could be a creator - but the values of the constants, nor our existence, do not make this possibility any more likely. We are a consequence of the universe as it exists, and had the universe been different we would not exist. That trivial fact doesn't constitute evidence that we were intended.

It could, but it probably wouldn't be human life.

I think you're rude.

As conscious beings we naturally seek out our Maker

The only beings seeking a Maker are those who are antecedently convinced that there must be one.

we are able to reason that he exists

The soundness of such reasoning is in dispute.

and are capable of recognising his handiwork in what has been made.

Of course you recognize it, if you assume that everything that has been made is his handiwork. Could there possibly be anything that, if you saw it, you would fail to recognize as his handiwork?

Brandon was being kind even if you did not deserve it.