Does God exist

Paragraph 1) "Would you not have to be intelligent to reorder all these letters into complex, meaningful sentences?" In you analogy, yes, but that doesn't apply to evolution. The whole point of natural selection is to one-up your opponents or fellow organisms. If your random genetic mutations doesn't work out, you die. If a whole group of species can't one-up their opponents, the whole species dies out. Let me use an analogy. Natural selection is like sieving for gold (a lot of people did this back in the gold rush in Australia). Genetic mutations are like what you find in the sieve (random rocks, mud etc). Obviously, you throw out any valueless material of no worth, yet you keep the gold you find now-and-then. Eventually, if you did this long enough, you would end up with a whole heap of gold. Same with evolution via natural selection. Obviously, no one is saying that complex organisms are formed completely randomly any more than randomly finding a heap of gold next to a river bed. Nevertheless, with a long process of refinement, you can profit quite a bit. In the case of vegetation's mathematical processes, any other vegetation with a less well working process will die out, while the better competitors live on. See! Gradual refining process! Paragraph 2) Well, 3.5 billion years worth of the above refinement can produce very complex organisms. For instance, say we had three plants with three different mathematical formulas (the analogy is grossly oversimplified, so there is probably holes in it. Nevertheless, I hope it gets my point across): Plant one: 1+1=2 Plant two: 1+1=4 Plant three: 1+2=2 Now, which plant is correct? Plant one, obviously. So what will happen to the wrong plants? They die out. Plant one is correct and therefore stronger, whereas plant's two and three are woefully incorrect. So, plant one will live one to the next generation, and the same process starts all over again on a new, slightly more advanced formula. Now again, don't take the analogy above as how evolution exactly works. It's only meant to show how better and more complex formulas can evolve over time with natural selection. Paragraph 3) "but something doesn't need to be based on a mathematical structure in order to work well, does it?" You just refuted yourself. You say mathematical processes in nature is evidence for a God, and then you say you don't necessarily need mathematical structures to work, and therefore you don't need God. This one sentence goes against everything you've said so far. Nevertheless, evolution doesn't have to make logical sense in nature for it to work. Often certain characteristics (mathematical or otherwise) work for other reasons, maybe completely separate from other plants. "There are flowers that don't follow the fibonacci sequence, so there doesn't seem to be any rational naturalistic reason why something has to be layed out on a mathematic formula in order to work" That's an argument from incredulity. Simply because you don't see a rational or logical reason for non-Fibonacci flowers to come about by natural selection, doesn't mean they didn't. Also, the flowers main purpose is to attract insects to pollinate, not to catch sunlight. So I'm not entirely surprised when you say there are some flowers that don't follow this structure. For instance a monkey's hands evolved primarily for swinging in trees. Then came humans, whom use hands in a completely different way from what was originally "intended", and is one of the best tool making tools ever known to nature. So what does this have to do with leafs? Well, some leafs are used for photosynthesis. On the other hand, plants have evolved with leafs drastically different from original "intent" (case in point, Venus fly trap). So not all of nature has to stick to a rigid Fibonacci formula to survive. All a plant needs is to survive, and maths takes a small part in this. But not always. Paragraph 4) No, the formula is not required by nature! No more than only claws are required for killing prey! A feature doesn't have to be required to dominate, and not all organisms dominating need this rule to survive! They can find other ways to do so. Furthermore, with you SETI analogy, we know that such formulas cannot come about naturally, because there is no random selection and genetic mutations in space. There is in nature, however, which nicely explains why and how complex features could come about naturally. Paragraph 5) When did Christianity come into play? We're talking about a deistic God, not a theistic God (and definitely not Jesus/Yahweh). " don't see how finding such programming in a crystal means that the programs got there by accident." So your saying someone programmed crystals to act like they do mathematically? Really? Maths is used to often (yet not perfectly) describe nature in an objective way through symbols etc. Nature wasn't created to fit within mathematics (which you yourself admitted earlier). For example, that's like saying that wind blows north to allow a flag to blow northward, which is illogical. Rather, the flag blows northward because the wind is blowing in that direction. "When you see a lovely pattern in a dress, you just "know" it was designed by an intelligent person" Well, yeah, because I've seen one being made, I've also seen a piece of paper on it saying "Mad in China". Furthermore, it is not beyond the real of nature to conclude a piece of clothing was made by a human. God on the other hand, is WAY more abstract. And snowflakes are made naturally. Are you also arguing that God made snowflakes act as they do? Paragraph 6: But your arguing that the house was made for inhabiting. Imagine the house had leaky sewage, unclean water, easily destroyed and extremely fragile with broken gas pipes and toxic airborne chemicals.. Would you live it it? Would you conclude that it's made by a master architecture? No! Same with the universe. Paragraph 7) Okay, you seemed to have shown a valid problem with my argument (so I accept your refutation), I'll change my argument to "Why is there so little life" to "Why is the majority of the universe uninhabitable for life". Paragraph 8) "there is no reason why just any arrangements on the dial wouldn't have an equal chance." That's an argument from ignorance. Simply because there is no reason why they wouldn't all have an equal chance, doesn't mean they all did have an equal chance. Paragraph 9) "Prove it. I didn't bring speculation to the table, but calculations being offered by well-known scientists who have their articles peer-reviewed." No, it was a hypothetical. I think you missed the "What if..." Part of my question. I didn't claim that our laws of physics were more probable than others. I was simply saying that it's possible, which would therefore make you argument of fine tuning irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you can't predict the possibility of our universe appearing unless you know the probability of each possible universe appearing. "Please give your sources regarding other universes" I wasn't the one claiming that other universes were possible, you did. All I said was basically "What if this universes laws of physics were more probable." Like I said, we don't know that, so it's pointless forming such a "fine tuning" conclusion from something we don't know. And no one has said the Big Bang got it all right the first go. Like I said, there is also the multiverse theory (even with no evidence for it). One guess is as good as another. But to find truth, we need properly backed up answers. And your proposition is that some God form who-knows-where did it because...reasons. Not very convincing, is it? Paragraph 10. I don't care about the bible. That's not what's this argument is about. And no, I'm not arguing that's the universe wasn't designed. I'm arguing that the universe wasn't designed for life as you propose (I'm gonna continue my rebuttal in comments. Running out of room)