Ask JimC

On a particular religion discussion board, I was becoming the main topic for some contributors. So I created a topic where anyone could ask me any questions and get their curiosity out of their systems, thereby enabling the focus of discussions to be on religion... 


Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 10 Dec 2013 at 2:36AM
It seems my opinions, views, thoughts and perspectives are shrouded in mystery (according to at least one person) so here is an opportunity for anyone and everyone to ask me anything and everything. Could be a topic on the board, or an old topic, or a new topic. Or anything (within the remit of the db description of course).

I will do my best to answer all questions over breakfast.

Best question wins a token!

(If there's enough demand I might create an "Ask JimC " discussion board.


Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by An Apologist  on 10 Dec 2013 at 3:11AM
Really, Jim--is this the best you can offer to the challenge to express and defend your perspective in all your posits? We're all aware of your admitted background in advertising--and as we all know from advertising, it is a one sided presentation of propaganda which neither expects nor acknowledges other expressed opinions on the matter. Again, you redirect responsibility for honest presentation of one's perspective onto others and pretend that this stunt of yours--where you remain in the driver's seat--reflects an honest exchange of views. Here's my challenge--previously expressed: present and be willing to defend your views on whatever matter that you would expect others to do so! Thanks for understanding what a real give-and-take discussion (hopefully for the enlightenment of all parties) is all about!

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by A non-religious theist  on 10 Dec 2013 at 3:25AM
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by An Apologist  on 10 Dec 2013 at 3:32AM
Of course I do! Nice misdirect in apparent defense of JimC who probably won't respond on topic to this challenge!

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by A non-religious theist on 10 Dec 2013 at 3:34AM
Sorry An Apologist, the question was for JimC not you

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by An Apologist  on 10 Dec 2013 at 3:35AM
I stand corrected and my apologies--thanks for the clarification!

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by A man in tights  on 10 Dec 2013 at 5:49AM
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 10 Dec 2013 at 9:00AM
Thanks for contributions! The token competition will remain open for a few more days just in case there are more questions.

Answers to on-topic questions are below. Answers to off-topic questions and/or personal comments can be found here [ RGFSMCL-015 ]

Question	Questioner	Answer	Potential Token Winner?
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	A non-religious theist	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question	Yes
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	A man in tights	Piers Morgan has zero credibility, without doubt, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan by definition	Yes

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by A non-religious theist on 10 Dec 2013 at 12:06PM
Part 2 to my question
Simple answer is no.
More complex answer is maybe mostly because it cant be disproved.
Then you mention infinite realities, in this case, the answer is yes.

I want to pick this apart somewhat but I really cant because I mostly agree with what you say except for the no.... I think there is a god if I had to say yes or no.

Still, you covered all bases, you should write a religious book


Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 10 Dec 2013 at 8:31PM
Hmmm…

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by A Born Again Christian  on 10 Dec 2013 at 3:48PM
What evidence would convince you that God exists?


Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 10 Dec 2013 at 8:30PM
This is a GREAT question.

There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I was to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists.

(More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief. as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)

Re: Ask JimC - Win a token!

Posted by a Pantheist on 10 Dec at 09:10PM

Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 11 Dec 2013 at 8:01AM

For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 11 Dec 2013 at 8:21AM
Latest Summary…

Question	Questioner	Answer	Potential Token Winner?
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	A non-religious theist	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question	Yes
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	A man in tights	Piers Morgan has zero credibility, without doubt, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan by definition	Yes
What evidence would convince you that God exists?	A Born Again Christian	There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)	Yes
Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?	A Pantheist	For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both.Yes	Yes

Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by A Born Again Christian on 11 Dec 2013 at 4:05PM
There were people who witnessed Jesus multiplying food from a young boy's lunch to feed 5,000 men plus women and children (with leftovers) who didn't believe that He was God. There were people who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead who didn't believe He was God. This is not a head issue for you, it is a heart issue. You have enough information and evidence to believe in God, but something else is holding you back. Only you and God knows what that is, and only God can break through that barrier. That is what I am praying for you, and that will be the evidence that God exists.


Re: Ask JimC  - Win a token!
Posted by JimC  on 11 Dec 2013 at 5:06PM
I'm disappointed you didn't comment on the evidence that I described.

I consider the supernatural stories in the Bible to be based on folk tales and legends, no different to thousands of other supernatural stories from our Stone Age and Bronze Age ancestors in every culture of every continent. Therefore they are hearsay at best and certainly not evidence. So the only thing "holding me back" from believing in your particular god is the same thing that "holds me back" from believing millions of things - and that is a lack of evidence.

I appreciate the prayers, that's kind of you. I think you're suggesting that if I was to start believing in God, that would count as evidence that God exists. I think there's a flaw in that logic.

And the winner is

Posted by JimC  on 16 Dec 2013 at 7:46AM

Congratulations to A Born Again Christian for coming up with this question in the "Ask JimC" thread...

"What evidence would convince you that God exists?"

A token will be on its way to you soon.

A simple question, clear concise and unambiguous. But at the same time, a very deep question that's not easy to answer! A simple question, but not simplistic. Aside from the problem of agreeing a definition of "God" (or agreeing "which god?"), it's very difficult for sceptics to answer the question without sounding closed minded, especially if their default response is… "nothing will convince me!" It also turns the tables on the sceptics who put the burden of proof on the believers.

So once again, excellent question.

RGFSMCL-015

Question	Questioner	Answer	Potential Token Winner?	Reason if "No"
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	A non-religious theist	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question	Yes
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	A man in tights	Piers Morgan has zero credibility, without doubt, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan by definition	Yes
What evidence would convince you that God exists?	A Born Again Christian	There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)	Yes
Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?	A Pantheist	For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both.Yes	Yes
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	A non-religious theist	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question	Yes
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	A man in tights	Piers Morgan has zero credibility, without doubt, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan by definition	Yes
What evidence would convince you that God exists?	A Born Again Christian	There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)	Yes
Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?	A Pantheist	For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both.Yes	Yes
Really, Jim--is this the best you can offer to the challenge to express and defend your perspective in all your posits?	An Apologist	Yes	No	Off topic
We're all aware of your admitted background in advertising--and as we all know from advertising, it is a one sided presentation of propaganda which neither expects nor acknowledges other expressed opinions on the matter	An Apologist	I don't have a "background in advertising" (admitted or otherwise). Two years ago I stated that "I spent many years in the marketing and advertising business." but that's not my background. You then formed an opinion about what my role might have been - a very negative opinion for some reason. Even though I explained to you at the time that my background is not in advertising, you continue to repeat your ad hominem opinions.  You shouldn't tar everyone who works or has worked in the advertising industry with the same brush, Many years ago you stated that you had a minor role in the movie industry, during a discussion on immorality, and you explained that your minor role had nevertheless given you an "insider" view.  It would never occur to me to jump to a conclusion that the immorality you may have witnessed somehow reflects badly on you.   Having said all that, it is true that during my exposure to the advertising world, the parallels and similarities with mainstream religion were striking. Finally I should point out that your assumption about how advertising works is not strictly accurate. There is propaganda but successful advertising relies on a deep understanding of the target audience, and advertising companies spend fortunes on researching and understanding people's opinions. Public opinion can demolish an advertising campaign, especially with the advent of social media.	No	Not a question. Off topic.
Again, you redirect responsibility for honest presentation of one's perspective onto others and pretend that this stunt of yours--where you remain in the driver's seat--reflects an honest exchange of views.	An Apologist	My impression was that you considered me to be in the "driving seat" when I was asking questions. Now you say I'm in the "driving seat" because I'm answering questions. Perhaps a better analogy would be that you are now in the driving seat, but you can't get the engine started	No	Not a question. Off topic.
Here's my challenge--previously expressed: present and be willing to defend your views on whatever matter that you would expect others to do so! Thanks for understanding what a real give-and-take discussion (hopefully for the enlightenment of all parties) is all about!	An Apologist	As far as I can tell, I have presented and have been willing to defend my views on whatever matter that I would expect others to do so. This is your opportunity to refer to a view that you consider I have been unwilling to defend. In fact I've given you many such opportunities, but you are always unable to find a single example. In the absence of evidence your allegation remains unfounded. I do sometimes wonder if the constant appearance of this allegation is a way for you to avoid responding on topic when you've lost the argument.	No	Not a question. Off topic.
Have you no shame? Identify my "quoting the Gospels to demonstrate the Gospels are true." Date please?	An Evangelical Christian	I possess a full range of emotions, including shame.  The quote was "JimC... continually confirms for me the wisdom of the Bible. --"The Gospel is foolishness to those who will not believe." and the date was 12 Dec 2013 at 5:53PM (UK time)	No	Not a question
Would you have us confuse the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?	An Apologist	No I wouldn't. They are obviously different. Eyewitness testimony is an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated. People who claim the gospels are eye witness accounts are confusing eyewitness testimony with hearsay	Yes

Confused Christians

Here is one of many pointless conversations with a Religious Apologist. Am I being trolled? You decide.

The story begins with me suggesting that if there is evidence to support the existence of God, it would be interesting to see it. A religious apologist provides a link to “20 arguments for God’s Existence” by another religious apologist (Peter Kreeft). This is a series of inductive arguments and analogies – it’s certainly not evidence. So...

#

Posted By

Date

Time (UK)

Comment

The Religious apologist reminds me that I am ignoring the 20 arguments for God article that he provided. He reminds me four times...

1	A Religious Apologist	12 Sep 2013	1:03AM	But of course you ignored my further evidence--let's get back to that link again: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
2	A Religious Apologist	12 Sep 2013	1:40AM	How would one verify such by the scientific method? Does one test with God's input and one without? That's the limit of this particular verification process regarding cosmological issues. That's not to say that there is no evidence for God beyond this particular unsuitable process: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
3	A Religious Apologist	14Sep 2013	1:19AM	you ignore other evidence not straitjacketed by the limited tool of science and its limited verification processes: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
4	A Religious Apologist	14Sep 2013	1:19AM	Again I've offered [a non-scientific explanation for intelligence] over and over which you've ignored--here's one link to consider, among many. As usual I've had to offer such multiple times, still hoping that you might respond to such on topic: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

So I decide to post a refutation for each of the arguments,

5

JimC

14 Sep 2013

6:54PM

A link was provided in a separate thread to “20 arguments for God's Existence.” Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy and a Christian Apologist. He is the author of “The Handbook of Christian Apologetics". It would be impossible to discuss all 20 arguments in a single thread so I suggest we look at them one at a time. Let's begin with the “The Argument from Change” which is number one on Peter Kreeft's list...

...when I got as far as number 5, a Christian Evangelist joins the debate...

6	A Christian Evangelist	30 Sep 2013	4:44PM	I've been away from this Board awhile. It seems to have changed for the worse. The topic “The Argument from Change” is an example. One internet article is used to answer some other interent article. Internet articles on controverted subjects are notoriously poor.
7	JimC	30 Sep 2013	5:03PM	A Religious  Apologist  presented a web site few weeks ago which he said provided "evidence for God". I don't blame him for posting an "Internet article" as you put it but it seemed to me there was no evidence in the article - just some analogies and inductive arguments. So I ignored it.  A  Religious Apologist then posted comments aimed specifically at me for ignoring the article. He did this four times. So rather than being criticised for ignoring so-called "evidence" I felt bound to respond. His article contained 20 "arguments" so I felt each should be examined individually rather than generally. The arguments so far have been flawed logically, and I've explained why. We've done 5 out of 20 so far.  Having been criticised for ignoring the article, I am now criticised for responding! Quelle Surprise! However you do have a point about long posts. Perhaps I should post my explanations off the board and provide links – then people don’t have to read long, boring posts.

The Religious Apologist joins in again – but he seems to have forgotten that I only responded to his link to Peter Kreeft’s website after he posted comments on four occasions, aimed at me, for ignoring it. He also seems to think that his loss of memory qualifies my post as a fallacious Straw Man argument!

8

A Religious Apologist

1 Oct 2013

1:59 AM

I didn't post comments aimed at you for "ignoring the article"--you are attacking me on a false premise--so you get a straw man for your misrepresentation. I critiqued the fact that you made dismissive, unsubstantiated posits regarding the content of the article, which you failed to support. Please note the difference.

Hmmm. He's forgotten what he said 2 weeks previously. So I am bound to remind him. This happens a lot in various debates. By the time I’ve reminded him of what he actually said, the debate has given up the will to live. Perhaps I’m being trolled. Anyway...

9	JimC	1 Oct	7:53AM	You did post comments aimed at me for "ignoring the article" which you referred to as "evidence". This happened four times over a seven day period, including twice in a single post.
10	A Religious Apologist	4 Oct 2013	12:509 AM	Do you see what you just did? My critique all along was that you were ignoring EVIDENCE! I did link to the article for that evidence but "evidence" itself was the issue--hence my point above!

Bizarre.  It seems that A Religious Apologist has forgotten his comments on 12th and 14th and blissfully unaware that the Kreeft article provides no evidence at all! Just weak analogies and inductive arguments.

Argument from Time and Contingency - Refuted

These are the standard objections to argument #3 on the list provided here...

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

If nonbeing is a real possibility, then the nonbeing of God is a real possibility. If the argument assumes God is exempt from this premise, then the argument commits the fallacy of special pleading, or if God is assumed at this stage, it is a circular argument because it is assuming in the premises what it is trying to prove. 

There is a premise which states... “If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all.” This assumption of “literally nothing at all” is not justified for three reasons: First, it is contradicted by the conclusion that God existed before the universe. Secondly, if time didn't exist until the universe existed there is no such thing as a “past moment before which” it existed. Finally, if there is a "past moment before which" our universe existed, how can the author possibly know what existed there, or didn't exist ? 

The premise that “From nothing nothing comes” sounds obvious based on human empirical experiences. But during the last 100 years we have discovered aspects of reality that are counter-intuitive, beyond human intuition and imagination. Things that were unknown to the original author of this argument, 800 years ago. For example, the concept that the total energy of the universe is zero so that our universe is literally an arrangement of nothing. To quote Heinz Pagels … "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

The argument states that "There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary." In fact there is no such thing as en empirical necessity. It is wrong to claim that an existent "thing" is logically necessary. And the claim is contradicted by a previous premise which states that "nonbeing is a real possibility." Several philosophical objections have been raised to this point in the past, notably Hume ... “Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent.” Also Kant famously explored this idea and explained how the concept of “necessary existence” is not meaningful. 

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/articles/kantexistence-a.pdf

Towards the end of the argument, the reference to “something” suddenly becomes a reference to a “being” with no explanation or justification. This appears to be a device used to subsequently support the conclusion that the absolutely necessary “thing” is a “being” from which there is another unjustified leap to the conclusion that the necessary “being” must be God. 

This conclusion ignores the possibility that if there was a "necessary thing" it could be a singularity, or a quantum vacuum fluctuation, or a team of godlike "beings", or alien "beings" or any number of alternatives to God including a "thing" that we have yet to discover, and so on... years ago.

The Design Argument - Refuted

These are the standard objections to argument #5 on the list provided here...

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

a) The entire argument is analogical and very weak when evaluated against the criteria for analogical arguments as described here... http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php

b) There is a statement that design comes only from a mind, but no explanation of how to tell the difference between order and design. The essence of the argument is that if a man-made product is designed by men, then a nature-made product must be designed by a nature-designer. This is an extremely weak analogy (see above). 

c) Although man made products are well within human experience, the concept of a nature-maker or nature-designer is beyond any possible human experience. And of course, any such “nature designer” need not be a god (unless the definition of any being who may be responsible for design in nature is a god). This part of the argument commits the fallacy of composition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

d) The argument assumes nature has a purpose and works towards an end. There is no justification or evidence for this assumption. 

e) Order could be a necessary attribute of existence. In other words, for something to exist it has to be “ordered”. Therefore everything that exists is bound to be ordered, by definition. 

f) The author assumes we can infer the application of intelligent design by examination, especially when living things remind us of something a human might design. However, observations of nature show that order and apparent design can come about by purely natural means, for example: snowflakes; crystals; rainbows; etc. 

g) The introduction of the concept of “chance” as a premise, and its instant dismissal by the author, highlights three flaws in the argument:

g1) The author has used the fallacious argument of false dichotomy by stating that nature is either the result of chance or purposeful design. Those are not the only two options. According to evolutionary scientists evolution is not chance. It is the very existence of the non-chance components of natural selection that allows evolution to happen. Natural selection results in order out of chaos, naturally and not by chance or at random.

g2) How do we tell the difference between chance and natural law? If we flipped a coin and we had precise information regarding size, shape, mass, forces, wind speed, humidity, gravitational force, and every physical factor on the coin, the outcome of the coin toss would be predictable. This implies that a chance event is just a lack of precise knowledge of initial states.

g3) Assessing the significance of "chance" requires the probability of an event to be calculated. It is impossible for anyone to calculate the probability of the existence of an ordered universe as there is not enough data available regarding the conditions required. If order is a necessary attribute of existence then the "chance" of an ordered universe existing is 100%

If we assume the existence of a designer...

h) The argument ignores the imperfections that we see in nature. Imperfections in a product suggests imperfections in the maker, which is not usually how God is portrayed. This line of thought also leads eventually to the "Problem of Evil" argument.

i) There are thousands of hypotheses which can explain what this designer or designers might be, without necessarily being God. For example: Nature itself could be self-organising; there could be a team of cosmic designers; the designer or designers do not have to be gods, they could design and create universes using advanced technology; and so on. 

j) If the great complexity we see in nature is evidence of a designer, then the designer must be greater than his or her creations. Therefore this designer would have been designed, leading to an infinite regression and the obvious question: Where did God come from? 

The analogies in this argument are particularly weak, as a standard evaluation demonstrates:  

Truth : The objects being compared (man made products vs natural products) are not similar in the way assumed. They are assumed to be similar in order to prove the argument. 

Relevance : Fails as a result of the truth test

Number : The only shared property appears to be "order" or "patterns".

Diversity : The shared properties are of very different types (e.g. Rolls Royce vs Giraffe). They are assumed to be of the same type in order to prove the argument.

Disanalogy : Fails due to the failure in the diversity test.

One of the weakest analogies provided by Religious Apologists is the Watchmaker argument. Click here to see a variation of that argument which uses a Rolls Royce instead of a pocket watch.