Math is very subjective. It can exist completely outside of objective reality.
But anyway, I’ll just reiterate that subjectively the odds of us arriving where we are are astronomical. I agree. Actually, I think everone agrees that the odds from a human-perspective point of view are astronomical.
I just wanted to point out that the argument comes from those talking about objective reality. That’s all. 
Hrm…what do you mean by this?
It seems more accurate to state that reality is very subjective, but math is objective within our reality.
I’m no mathematician, but apparently they can make up all sorts of equations that are not connected to reality. For example, I believe the process can involve creating axioms and axioms can be anything. I believe it’s kind of an “if…then” kind of arrangement.
An example:
axioms:
A = wings let you fly
B = elephants have wings
then:
then A+B=C
C = elephants can fly
This is valid math (I think, remember I’m just trying my best here), but it is not true in objective reality.
So A+B=C is limited in meaning without a subjective context. Does that make sense?
To further define “subjective”: subjective is by definition anything a person thinks or feels. That’s the definition of it.
“Objective” means reality as it actually is regardless of our subjective perceptions of it.
So every “thing” (not just math) that we create is by definition subjective. The goal usually being to try to make whatever our subjective creation is match objective reality.
This seems more like the language of logic rather than mathematics; however, if such equations do exist in the realms of differential equations and abstract math, it’d be beyond my expertise. I only went through Calc 2. 
Nah, it’s easy! Take football scores:
They are completely abstract (and subjective):
A team scores a touchdown and they get 6 points. “6” is added to their previous score on the score board.
Why is it 6 points? No reason. It could be 10 points, but we’ve decided it’s 6.
And what is a “point”? No one knows. It has no objective existence. It’s just an abstract concept that we use to create our scores.
So when you go to a game everyone is accepting this math that is completely abstract and subjective.
Simple, yes? (or are you just tired of this topic?)
Simple enough, but i’m not convinced that it proves mathematics is subjective. I definitely understand that we can use these numbers to represent quantities of imaginary objects, but the subjectivity disappears in that there are set rules in math that are followed, and they do not change relative to what we are working with.
Da man has a point. 
It would be impossible to describe subjectivity without relativity, math is not relative. That’s the point i’m trying to make. 
I’ll take another stab at it. But first, we should recognize that we are just establishing definitions. Your definitions are just as valid as mine, it’s just that some definitions can create ambiguities and contradictions if they aren’t “tight”.
My definition of subjectivity = anything human.
By this I mean, anything taken in by a human, and anything put out by a human (of which math would be one).
And objectivity = the truth inherent in the object (having no human involvement whatsoever).
I believe that there is an “objective math” that exists and I believe that some of our subjective math approximates it. But I consider 100% of the math created by humans as “subjective”. It’s my (and others) definition.
Ya see, as soon as we say “humans created something objective” then the definition of “subjective” doesn’t mean anything any more. It is untrue and the definitions clash. Making subjective=with-human and objective=with-out-human makes the definitions separate and non-contradicting. That’s why I prefer this definition. It’s tight. 
Hai.