An problema nga po ay yung fallacious judgement na more plausible sya. How is it more plausible? You have to start with the assumption that it is intelligent design. However intelligence of a design is a human centric idea. At kung human centric lang din ang line of thinking, why ignore the property of the universe that annihilate instead of create?The fine-tuning argument as a candidate in explaining the existence of the universe may be flawed but at least it kind of points out to something more plausible [like a fine-tuner may be?] compare to the assumption of random process that many atheists hold.
In short, the idea fails to consider the other possibilities that could have been based on the one sample of a universe.
This comment is assumptious, and does not have any connection with the topic at hand. Kung theist ka dahil sa emotional reasons mo against liberal socio-politics, isn't this a sign na invalid ang reasoning ng bias mo?If you find the claim for God as fairy tale then it is fair to say that it is a fantasy to claim that a man is capable of becoming a woman and vice versa, which is a popular talking point of secular liberal lunatics.
Fallacy again. Appeal to hypocrisy. Walang lugar sa scientific discourse ang ganitong thinking. Walang pupuntahan ang emotionally charged polarized arguments na ganito.I agree that there is some element of fear in religion, but the point of instilling that fear is to encourage believers to do or act good otherwise the consequence is hell. This is not alien to us since our secular government is practicing this as well, which by the way is imported from a religious doctrine, specifically judeo-christian doctrine.
And wow, your following arguments...? Labas labas din ng bahay pag may time. The internet is not the world.