As may not surprise any of you, just came from my first day of uni philosophy like so many others with something curious the professor said.

He was going through arguments for God's existence because it is a large part of our course. He dealt with many arguments fairly short-handedly including the fine-tuning argument, he was just skimming for now so he mentioned the Anthropological Argument (that the universe is ideal for us because if it weren't we wouldn't exist and so to look to this as evidence for god is kind of like deciding whether to put your chips in after you've seen everybody else's hand). He stated that this particular argument didn't catch on very well with philosophers because the logic seems a bit reversed.

Does this statement accurately describe the situation in modern philosophy? I'm interested in philosophy but not really arguments over God, but I never thought the weak anthropological argument was particularly bad. If anyone has some background information (I realize I probably should have consulted SEP first but I do like to hear this stuff from interactive people usually) that would be useful as well.