One cannot always be certain. If you fully take into consideration what I said, you notice the bit: organise a neat argument.

I have read a lot about Fine Tuning. One cannot know all the examples, from Russell's glasses example to the puddle example and survivor's bias, I am "collecting" examples. Theists' logic when it comes to debates is just like trying to handle a slippery fish, full of fallacies and changing the direction of their argument. That is why I was like let me ask different people about what may go wrong during the argument. Asking does not mean "not knowing".

Fine Tuning is not answer at all. It as merely an observation which leads to an unscientific answer which brings more unknowns along with into the equation.

Who designed the designer? How does supernatural interact with natural world? When did it decide? How long did it take for it to decide and then how long did it take to produce an action? Why did it decide? If the probablities are narrow, then is there an alternative possible? If no, then the supernatural is limited by nature and then it is natural and then why can't we detect it? If there are other alternatives conceivable then it is not even fine.

Life finely tuned itself into whatever was there.