As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.
Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.
It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.
Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.
Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.
Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.
''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''
Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''
''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.
''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?
Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.
You have never proved that machines have makers. Since the only machines that have makers are human machines, the other ''machines'' may or may not have makers, we don't know, unless you have evidence for it.
Since the only things that exist are machines, we can apply the example of the machines that we know the makers of, to the big machine that we don't see the maker of, to show that it has a Maker.
Why, though? Those machines have nothing to do with the machines humans make. I don't see why we can apply the example of our machines which have a purpose and a job to nature ''machines'' as you call them. Nothing indicates a rock is designed.
Much of the machinery in a rock has to do with the machinery that we make. Even the simple electromagnetic forces between the subatomic particles of a rock, are the same kinds of forces between the subatomic particles that make up our machines. Or consider the levers of nature that we apply in many of our machines. Not one of our machines could exist if it were not at least a partial copy of a machine of nature. All of our machinery is patterned after aspects of the machinery of nature. It's all machinery. It's all machines.
Yes we got inspired by nature to create stuff but that still doesn't mean that nature itself is designed, there is no way to tell. We can only tell our stuff is designed/made because we know about it or we can compare it to nature, however when you look at nature and you try to guess if it's designed or not, you can't. There is nothing to compare it to, there is nothing that says it's designed.
