I agree with Tengri too.

But he does make a fair point

Christianity claims god is just and the argument on geographical favoritism clearly puts itself against that claim

The empirical proof would be a world map on religious composition

In principal, only a perfect God can know what is perfect good. Reservations about the realities of Him come from an anthropological basis. You have to first grant that you would know better than a perfect being, which you don't.

So essentially this is the same as arguing that "God is mysterious in his ways"

What is the difference between this and the guy's claim that Tengri is mysterious in making all religions lead to him?

The difference is logical coherency. The 'all roads lead to Tengri' argument is based on a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Whereas the perfect God argument is based on the premise that a God exists.

If the premise is that Tengri exists, shouldn't the all religions argument also work for Tengriism?

If Tengri is God, the Tengriist make additional claims about his nature. You need to follow up with additional arguments.

An omnipotent god would be a perfect god, logically

Correct.

Tengriists believe their god is omnipotent

Good so far.

And that their god provides different methods to reach him

So if god is perfect

Then this last statement must be true

That's the unknown quantity. How does a perfect God act his goodness?

I've been looking for servers like this for a year

Tengriists believe their god is perfect I presume

Which is why they justify everyone going to paradise

Why would everyone have to go to paradise?

I believe Tengriists follow the philosophy of determinism

The Tengriist believes in a god without standards.

Which is the reason they use the different paths for different cultures argument

But why does a perfect God have to deliver everyone to paradise?

Why does god necessarily need standards?

Why does a perfect god not délivrer everyone to heaven?

The Absolute, be definition, is beyond us. We are like children asking why we can't all have candy all the time.

Of course, I don't agree with any of this nonsense

I am simply making my case that the two religions are similar

This is a theoretical argument, sure.

In their fallacious logic

The both have problems, but for different reasons.

I am pedantic about why things are wrong, not just that they are.

My logic is that if we can make the case that two logics can be disproven on the backbone of similar logical failures, then one cannot reasonably choose one over the other

Religions*

It would then be illogical to pick one religion over the other