Let's be honest

[The Architect Of Fate]

My point was the differing levels of explanation.  If you don't like the Henry Ford analogy, take Frank Whittle as the inventor/creator of the jet engine.  The point is Whittle does NOT compete with the laws and engineering steps to create the jet engine.  Both explain the existence.

Whittle doesn't explain the existence of engines anymore than Ford did.  I could know absolutely everything about either man and I would still know nothing about engines.  If I know anything about engines, all details about either man are extraneous to that understanding...of engines.

I would saw that the jet engine DOES require a person/mind to USE the laws to make it work.  That's what inventing is.  Using the world we have, the knowledge we've acquired to invent something new.  Requires a mind.  One explains HOW/WHAT is happening, the other is WHY, but both satisfy the question regarding a jet engine. 

Like a squid, you mean?  Do squid explain how jet, or why jet?

Same with water boiling.  Someone walks in to your kitchen and see a pot on the stove bubbling and asks you, "Why is the water boiling?"  Do you respond with a scientific answer like heat induction and water molecule excitement?  No.  It's boiling because I'm making pasta for dinner.  But that explanation is not contradictory to the scientific explanation to the question.  They are both correct.  I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, just that I see a lot of naturalist/materialist say that modern science has removed the need for God to explain anything and I disagree because of this differing level of explanation, one from agency.

I think if we kept going with these examples we'd find a pattern.  Yes, I do respond to questions accurately.  If you ask me what boiling water is, I'll tell you.  If you ask me how water boils, I tell you.  If you ask me who is boiling water, I'll tell you.  What you're telling me, is that you would consistently answer at least two if not all three of these questions with the same response.

There's more than just science and theism competing in these semantics, imo.

Theists forever cheating  by using known created objects and then projecting that onto objects without a known creator. Making the same error Paley made. They can't use man-made objects to push the idea that all objects were intelligently made they can point to man-made objects being man-made and nothing else it takes extra steps to prove anything humans did make requires an intelligence that isn't either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity. And isn't just them adding irrelevant questions to the discussion under the notion there must be a why?  and a who?.