On a non-technical level, I don’t think it makes much sense as an argument. Assuming the theist is arguing something like “there is a God, evidenced by examples of order against a backdrop of chaos” (which I believe is more or less the flavour of the assertion), then the chaos is acknowledged by, and a necessary part of the assertion itself.
None of that makes either argument right or wrong, but the assertion is one of contrast, surely?
Why wouldn’t God want disorder?
Furthermore, how could any human use an attribute like order or disorder to argue for or against God? How could a human possibly know if God wanted an orderly or disorderly universe?
Exactly.
And “disorder” can easily be attributed to the limits of our scientific knowledge at any point in time. Before Newton, we didn’t have a good sense of how much order there was in the cosmos. And then, long after Newton, we suddenly learned that “disorder” (or non-determinism) is the way of the world on very small scales.
Belief in God relies on faith. If you can prove God exists, then he’s just an advanced extraterrestrial.