The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

And shown why your argument is invalid and assumes facts not in evidence.

Not that I've noticed.

Suppose a laptop computer materialized in the lab of some scientists 200 years ago. No one knows how it got there and no one is familiar with the manufacturing techniques of our time. 100 scientists look at it and just based on observation, turning it on, looking at the symmetry 70 of them conclude the object was created intentionally by a designer. They offer facts to support that conclusion.

1. The fact it exists
2. The fact it is complex
3. The fact it operates in a specfic manner
4. The fact the individual parts work in unison to achieve a specific result.

Except, 200 years ago, the last two facts would not be known. And going simply on the first two, the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid.

I think they'd be smart enough to figure out how to turn it on. They would carefully take it apart and examine the intricacies. They could take the CPU out and note it no longer works. They could take the memory chips out and note it doesn't work. But you say the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid...even though in that case it would be true. Its your conclusion that would be invalid.

1. Maybe it always existed (of course they don't actually believe that but the fact its a possibility that supports the conclusion already arrived at is good enough for them.

Given that it materialized in the lab, we know for a fact that that isn't true.

Maybe it was an orange that turned into a laptop and you would say its still an orange in the form of a laptop. Or maybe it materialized from a corridor to an alternate universe where only laptops always existed. I mean come on in the world of atheism any alternative theory you can imagine is viable since it doesn't require any evidence it actually happened or could happen and you don't have to believe it yourself. And if you don't believe that I'll chalk it up to personal incredulity.