John Lennox and William Lane Craig have begun to defend this argument. I suspect one reason is because nominalists, realists, and conceptualists can all agree with it. Here's how I would summarize the argument:
1. The universe exhibits mathematical structure. (Premise)
2. Either the universe was designed by a deity who used the concepts of mathematics and imposed them upon the universe, or else the mathematical structure of the universe is a happy coincidence. (Premise)
3. It is not a happy coincidence. (Premise)
4. Therefore, a deity exists. (From 1 - 3)
Premises (1) and (3), I should hope, are uncontroversial. To deny either of these premises is well beyond fringe philosophy. It's premise (2) that's most important. Even if one states that the mathematical structure of the universe is due to necessity, it's still just a happy coincidence. Moreover, it is conceivable that the universe could operate under different and contradictory mathematical models. Does the universe operate under a Euclidean or under a non-Euclidean geometry? Both are consistent, so that would additionally undermine the notion that the universe's mathematical structure is due to necessity.
What about the nominalists with respect to premise (2)? Well, according to them, abstract objects, including mathematical objects and systems, are just useful fictions. This would mean the designer chose to use a specific system of mathematics by which the universe would behave. A realist would say that the designer recognized which mathematical system was correct and then designed the universe accordingly. Finally, the conceptualist's views already lead to a designer. Similar to the realist, the deity on conceptualism already knew which mathematical system was correct, since the deity's mind is what grounds these mathematical truths.
In order to avoid this argument, one will have to deny (3). To those who attempt such a strategy, good luck!