OP, several people have replied to your claim that the universe seems to require a designer due to its complexity, function, and purpose. You have not justified how complexity, in and of itself, points to an intelligent designer (see especially Esquilax's post in which he discusses emergent complexity); you have not justified the claim implicit in your analogy between the universe and designed objects such as internal combustion engines, i.e., that the universe has function or purpose -- much less explained what that purpose is; and you have not dealt with those who pointed out that one distinguishes designed objects only be contrast with naturally occurring objects (and not by noting that it is complex).
Now that it appears you are abandoning that line of argument to spew the cosmological argument, as per the apologists' playbook, is it fair to conclude that you concede your argument from design is flawed, or is this simply a case of moving on to throw shit against a wall to see what sticks? We get a lot of that here.
If I can guess the next argument you'll turn to when the cosmological argument also goes down in flames, do I win a prize?
Now that it appears you are abandoning that line of argument to spew the cosmological argument, as per the apologists' playbook, is it fair to conclude that you concede your argument from design is flawed, or is this simply a case of moving on to throw shit against a wall to see what sticks? We get a lot of that here.
If I can guess the next argument you'll turn to when the cosmological argument also goes down in flames, do I win a prize?
