One other interesting thought, back along the lines of the main thread. The references to mathematics makes me recall Derb’s response to the challenge that certain mathematicians have directed against evolution – that is that the probablity of all the elements that create the universe, life, DNA, and beings that are capable of interrogating the same is astronomically high.
The usual responses to this are that the massive amounts of time involved allow for enough random activity to produce the deisred effect. The problem is that the amouint of time scientists estimate it tool for all of this to occur doesn’t fit well with the probablities involved with it happening by chance.
Derb’s response was novel, and I’m paraphrasing: “It just happened.” To some extent this is an understandable response. If one pulls a lever with a 1 in 1,000,000 chance to win and wins on the first go, this all fits in neatly with the probablity. Luck of the draw. However, the essence of Derb’s response contains that very assumption, which is not any more convincing than the prospect of facing that same 1 in a million chance if say, your life depended on the first 50 pulls.
Furthermore, those of us on the religious side can point to the same argument and contend, “God just is,” and point to the historical qualities of say the New Testament, and the reasonings of apologetics (and the idea that these do not directly compete with any scientific theories or discoveries about nature – apart from the notion of the miraculous – which is a contention about God’s power and not nature itself).
Add to this that the idea of a universal mind such as God has a certain correspondence with the idea of universal physical laws, and Derb’s answer potentially turns the usual materialists’ assumptions about Ockham’s Razor on it’s head. The convergence of a massively improbable collection of events is far less simple than the idea of a universal oneness that takes the form of directed intelligence (or God, for short). One may argue that such a oneness is inexplicable, but this derives (again) from the notion of one’s uncertainty about such a being or the metaphysical nature of such a being (see my discussion with JA, if you have a lot of time to read 
The explicableness of the being of this oneness though is certainly not much more problematic than explaining why gravity works as attraction instead of repulsion, or other whys of certain universal physical principles.
There is the notion that the universe is actually geared towards organization, life, etc. and that this lowers the probability hurdle, but this idea surely points to the concept of design, since without it we are left with either the original raw probabilities dictated by chance or whatever inaccessable probabilities that exist regarding the creation/existence of a universe that leans towards order, life, etc. Again, at some point one must take Derb’s very honest but very unconvincing answer – it had to have just happened.
One might also posit that the statisticians are simply mistaken, but that’s a very open argument.
