Does God exist

Argument 1) OK, if I'm correct, you argument goes as follows: There is mathematical processes in nature. Only an intelligent mind can create mathematical processes in nature Therefore, only an intelligent God could have implemented said mathematical processes in nature. Firstly, you have a faulty reasoning that evolution is just "blind, purposely, unguided chance". Evolution is quite the opposite. Darwin put it this way: Evolution is "descent with modification". If the modifications aren't beneficial, the descendant dies out. Let me expand on that: If organisms produce certain actions and such mathematically, it is because they are "chosen" through natural selection. Organisms today with these complex processes are the product of 3.5 billion years worth of refinement, not random chance. The only random part of evolution is gene mutation. Organisms with faulty mathematical processes or faulty DNA die out, whereas organisms with better mathematical processes or "blue print" structure would survive better. This is evidenced by the fact that about 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth have died out. Sources: . http://press.princeton.edu... And this would make sense for plants, as the Fibonacci numbers in nature are good for maximising space for the amount of light falling on the leaf, which would have dominated in flora evolution. Source: . http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu... Another interesting thing is that in your source (Phyllotaxis as a Dynamical Self Organizing Process) it says: "These patterns are surprisingly regular, so regular in fact that a physicist can compare their order to that of crystals" So the patterns in life are comparable to crystals? Strange that no one says crystals are created by an intelligent designer! So why is life special in this regard? So as you can see, a God is not necessarily needed for the complex mathematical mechanisms seen in organisms. Evolution by natural selection does the job nicely. 2) You have structured this argument in a way that concedes to abiogenesis and evolution. In other words, you are basically saying that God fine-tuned the universe to accommodate life. But why would God fine-tune the universe for life to exist? Why does God have to create the universe in a precise way for life, rather than creating life to accommodate the universe? Anyway, I have to disagree with you. The universe seems more finely-tuned for black holes. There is about a 100 billion of them in just our galaxy. How much life is there in the universe besides earth that we know of? None. Why would the universe be fine tuned by God for life to exist if life itself seem to scarce in this quote/unquote "finely tuned" universe? If God really did fine tune the universe of life, he certainly did a bad job at it. Especially when you consider: Extremely harmful radiation that is otherwise completely unneeded for life to exist. Black holes that could destroy solar-systems Andromeda galaxy heading right in our direction Asteroids which could hit us at any time Radioactive rock on earth that is otherwise not useful for life to exist, and is rather quite for life. etc etc etc. Furthermore, how do we know that the fundamental laws of physics could be different? It is only a mathematical hypothesis that the laws of the universe could be changed. Why do you assume that the laws of physics have an equal chance of being different via the Big Bang? What if the laws of physics in this universe have a higher probability of forming this universe than others? As you can see, there is no point in using the possibility of other laws of physics forming other universes as no one knows if and how possible that idea is. However, even the laws of physics within this universe has doomed life to an eventual and complete destruction. The universe will eventually slip into a "Big Freeze", where everything in the universe will reach absolute zero and freeze, where life will never be able to live again. Not so fine-tuned after all? Another point to consider is that if we, for a moment, imagined a universe without God, a universe like our own is still conceivable. Therefore, the existence of our universe's laws of physics is not good evidence for God, as the absence of God would not effect the existence of said laws. It would be exactly the same. However, if the laws of this universe weren't conceivable to exist unless a God exists, only then would you have a point. Nonetheless, chance could be a possibility of why this universe has specific laws that allows life (as we know it anyway) to exist. Simply because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible. It's just unlikely. Winning a national lottery is extremely unlikely, but definitely not impossible (otherwise, that would defeat the purpose of participating). Therefore, dismissing the idea that the universe is just the product of chance on the sole basis that it's unlikely is ludicrous. A multi-verse is also possible, though I wouldn't bet my money on it as it has about the same amount of evidence for it as the "God hypothesis" (except maybe a few quantum experiments with odd interpretations, but that's about it). All we can say regarding the structure of our universe is "I don't know". Simply guessing and formulating unproven hypothesis is hasty. 3) You two arguments demonstrate a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. For all we know, there may be supernatural processes outside our universe, but to say that it is a thinking being is non-sequitur.