This atheist, and scientist explains why he came to the realization why there has to be a loving God! [Spirituality & Religion]

lol i like this guy.

Buuut i'm not finding anything particularly compelling about his arguments. So yes, i'm absolutely still doubtful of the existence of the abrahamic god.
He uses the two arguments that almost every christian uses: an argument from personal incredulity and appeal to a fine tuned universe.

The fine tuned universe i feel can be very succinctly addressed by the puddle analogy:

A puddle wakes up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

So was the hole made for the puddle or did the puddle occupy the space that was available for it?

Another issue i have with his reasoning is that he acknowledges several naturalistic explanations for various things but then seems to reject them for reasons that he does not make clear.
He acknowledges that there are naturalistic explanations for how the universe could exist as it does. He says some of these explanations must necessarily be taken on faith. Ok. But he then goes on to declare that [i]his[/i] faith claim is actually the more likely for reasons that he does not specify.

He goes on to make some rather flawed arguments.
One of them is that evidence of a god who gave us morals can be found in the fact that humans are unique in our sense of right and wrong.
Well that's just false on its face.
The example which leaps to mind is the tests that researchers have done on monkeys. There was an experiment wherein the monkeys traded tokens or pebbles for food rewards. Initially they were given a cucumber (or some vegetable) in exchange for their token and they ate it quote happily. Then they started giving some monkeys fruit for their tokens, a much more valuable prize. The result? The monkeys who were still getting cucumber threw a fit. They refused to eat their cucumber and didn't participate in the exercise anymore.
They recognized that they were not being treated fairly in comparison to the monkeys who received fruit. What do we call that except an understanding of what is right and what is wrong? They found it unacceptable that they were not getting the same reward for the same payment.
So in fact, a sense of right and wrong is not uniquely human. Actually, the fact that this sense also appears to exist in animals which are judged by phylogeny to be closely related to us rather supports the conclusion that we evolved from a shared ancestor. Incidentally, Collins does believe in evolution.

Another example he gives that god must have had a hand in our being is the presence of what he calls extreme altruism: people risking life and limb for other people who they might not even know....but he previously acknowledges that there are evolutionary explanations for altruism. So if the tendency for altruism can easily be explained by evolution as a social animal, when then should we attribute it to the work of a supernatural designer? After all, instincts can often be expressed in unusual ways. Consider the example of a lioness who kept stealing antelope babies and mothering them. She had lost her cubs and her instinct to mother was transferred to another animal entirely.
So is it then any argument for god that altruism which, as Collins says, can readily be explain by an evolutionarily adaptive drive for reciprocal altruism or to preserve one's genes can be expressed for strangers?

Ultimately, my impression is that Collins came to believe because of a lack of information. Hence the argument from personal incredulity.

We must be concerned with what is true, wherever that investigation leads us.