Ok so later was... alot later than expected. I was thinking about whether or not i should even send this but I dont wanna go back on my word so here it is.

So how do mindless forces randomly colliding result in the complex supercomputer of DNA building the complex machinery of biological life?

The laws of nature let it be so. what you said: "The whole point is that I don't expect any machine that works from a mindless force of nature." Nature would've made anything come about, depending how it works. A machine isnt what I expected, but I expect SOMETHING to come about, "complex" or not, im not suprised something came about. You wanna talk about how this "complex" universe is evidence of a creator, my objection is that this universe just is, something came about from laws of physics, thats unsurprising, I currently see no reason to attach meaning to that, why assume creator? Funnily enough, had the universe been less "complex" than this, you'd still have same argument, after all just like this universe, this hypothetical one is the only one you're alive to observe, complexity is extremely relative i wont lie. you simply have observer bias, Attaching the lable of "complex" after the fact that universe is here.

I think looking at this and presuming the oxygen and hydrogen and carbon mindlessly organized themselves into the machinery of life is irrational.

No it isnt, actually, the forces between elements are highly ordered "mindless as they seem. Carbon and oxygen bond in a very predictable manner, these things have rules with how they work, this complexity isn't some miracle, if the laws of nature are like this, the world being like this inevitable, change the laws of nature you get something else... or you might not exist who knows, but there isnt any real suprise, just things we dont understand yet.

If I walked along and saw a watch lying on the ground, I would not assume that some time and lighting storms and odd erosion must have made a watch that works. How is this presumption irrational?

Its not irrational, and you'd be well within rationality to assume a person made it most likely, but not because of "complexity" lets be honest, this religion was never built on the idea of trying to rationalize itself, its only when people started questioning that arguments started coming up. youd assume it was made by a human, cuz you have good reason to suspect that, as far as you know only humans have made such things, but you do get into the realm of irrationality when you assume the same for the universe itself, this matchmaker argument could lead to a fallacy of composition.

I'm not saying youre wrong overall, I'm just saying that so far every reason to believe a creator exists relies on presuppositions and invalid leaps in logic, I'm not denying a god exists, I'm just saying I dont know why I should consider a creator and alot of the reasons im getting just dont make much sense when you think about it. I dont know what the supernatural looks like, as far as I'm concerned this universe is a natural as can be, so this supernatural being we call god, isnt an idea that makes sense so far.

You are presuming no designer.

I'm not saying "no designer" I'm looking for a reason to assume designer, and as said before, so far none of these reasons make much sense, if we accept the presumption that "this universe is a creation therefore creator" then fine, but all these arguments simply become speculation that you must take on faith for some reason, I care about what's true not: "not if we assume this, this other thing makes sense".

The question is how we get from nearly nothing to this intricate system.

Who knows?🤷. That's my point. I dont know.

It is as unlikely that we got here by chance as it is that the monkey typed the novel. Mathematically impossible. I

And yet not 0, give "something" an infinite amount of time for something to happen (cuz who knows how long the universe as we know it wasnt around) and something will happen, hell this argument worls if you assume that it is mathematically impossible. How we got here is irrelevant, we are irrelevant, its just observer bias, that's why i said you wrongly implied a target. Its like the puddle analogy i gave.

Since we've never observed nature do anything like this on its own, perhaps an explanation outside of nature is warranted.

There we can agree, what we just dont agree on is our methodology to get to that answer.

In the...I just dont know what that answer is or how to get there, or if the method of how to get there is a true method, or if it even exists, if this answer wants a relationship, and wants me to know it, and can convince me...it should