You: That was a beautiful argument, but other than that it has little worth. The problem with what you are saying is that the universe is not in a "delicate balance" at all. Trees do grow thick and deprive their own young of sunlight, deer do strip the land, carnivores do deplete their source of food. There are hundreds of cases of animals overpopulating their environment, plants dying from lack of soil nutrients, and mass extinctions. None of this seems like evidence for a God-supported "delicate balance."

Aaron: You have refuted nothing. In each of your examples, the situation is remedied in the end. Overpopulated groups are thinned by starvation and disease, again restoring the delicate balance.

You: It sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. You originally said that these small imbalances never happen, and now you tell me that they are all just part of the balance of things. Can you explain yourself more clearly.

Aaron: The heart of my argument is that without balance the universe would go spinning off in who knows what direction, bringing only chaos, not organization, with it. Because we do not see disarray around us, only balance, we must conclude that the universe is being controlled. Little episodes of what looks like imbalance are merely part of God's plan, not proof that the plan does not exist.

You: That is the mathematical perfection of natural laws argument back to haunt me already. I thought we were done with that?

Aaron: You seem unable to see simple shades of meaning between different philosophical topics. I will try a completely different approach and see if it is easier for you to understand.