While I can find no fault with the deductive validity of this argument - the conclusion certainly seems to follow from the premises - I'm afraid this is as successful as the argument gets. Not just one, but both of the premises commit logical fallacies which they hide in the vagueness of their formulation.
It feels about time that age-old question "why is there something rather than nothing?" should notice it's old age and finally die off. While the question seemed all-important and pertinent to the ancients, what we now know about the nature of the universe renders it obsolete.
It takes a fair few years of a university degree to begin to realise that symmetry is perhaps the most fundamental concept in modern physics. It's no accident that one of the leading candidates for new physics is called "Supersymmetry".
Relying on Reason is not a Faith Position
The state of the universe around us offers far more support to the hypothesis that the universe is not designed for humanity, than it does to the contrary. The universe looks exactly how we'd expect if it were not created.
A Calabi-Yau manifold is a kind of six-dimensional surface that has very special properties. These special properties mean that Calabi-Yaus play a central role in String Theory research.
To anyone who doesn't use abstract mathematics on a daily basis, the concept of an imaginary number sounds absurd. We can't use them to count things, as we can with natural numbers.
This isn't an action shot of a cube of metal as it falls to the ground. This is real life levitation.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is an exceptionally simple statement, yet has profound implications for the evolution of the universe. Despite it's simple form however, it seems that there are many misconceptions that people have about what it really means.
