Some times this argument would be fallowed by examples of things we know have been created.
The central stupidity of this argument is the assumption that the universe and everything in it has been created.
This is a snow flake. It looks designed, everything about it looks like some one made it but no one made it. Snow flakes are not designed, they are not made, they form by them selfs with no help from any intelligence. We know how they form, they form due to the property of water molecules[1] Things can and do form them selfs due to the properties of the material they are made of and the environment they formed in.
Crystals, rocks, beaches, mountains, rivers, valleys, planets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters. all of these formed with out the help of any intelligence. they formed due to the materials they are made of, the environment those materials were in and how that environment changed.
What about life? Life the same but different. The environments and how environments change dose effect living things but life is also able to replicate it self.
But what about life it self? Isn't a creator necessary for life to have been created? No. The environments of the primordial oceans and the chemicals in those environments were probably enough to produce the chemical reactions that formed the first simple (very simple, simpler than any modern organism) living organisms. That life reproduced, evolved and the rest is history.
© 2009 all rights reserved
Sources
Image source:
1.
Nah, just ask them explain the creation of an even more complex god. Surely god must have been designed as well, based on their logic?
Then they’ll go into special pleading and say “God doesn’t need a creator”
And so does the origin of species.