>>513151455
this guy's 'nana argument was actually solid.
same with bill o'reilly's "tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that" if you really understand what he's getting at.
they seem simplistic and worthy or ridicule at first glance, but they're just crude informal variants of the teleological argument.
basically
1: the universe exhibits complex order and regularity
2: such order is unlikely to arise by chance alone
3: therefore, it is reasonable to infer a purposeful designer.
granted, it's not a knock-down proof of theism, it's just a philosophical inference.
but it's one that resonates deeply with human intuition.

the two main rebuttals against this are the opposite, they seem really strong at first, but it's extremely weak when you think about them.