I didn't have dessert after my last meal, so I'm looking forward to that cookie.
Your argument falls apart on at least five levels.
1.) Look at the nearest building and/or entire city. How do you know there was a builder? Wait, answer the question. Look at the building: how do you know there was a builder? The building is proof that there was a builder.
Now, look at the nearest painting (and try to avoid abstracts. ;)). How do you know there was a painter? Because of the painting.
Examine the computer you are using. Would you dare to risk admission into a mental hospital by claiming that no one made the computer--but it just appeared, over a course of millions of years (of course)? The same goes for your car: perhaps the engine, windows, steering wheel, brakes, tires, brake fluid, axle, frame, body, seats, pedals, radio, muffler, exhaust pipe, spark plugs, windshield wipers, air conditioning, heating, radio speakers, 6-CD changer, and everything else just jumbled together (possibly from an explosion) and created a perfect car? If you believe this, you better also believe that your reputation is going down the drain.
The Swiss watch is a good example. If you took all of the pieces--separately--of a Swiss watch, put them in a plastic bag, and shook them continuously (created a "Big Bang"), how many millennia do you think it would take to get a functioning Swiss watch? Actually, we don't measure those amounts of time in millennia. We call it "infinity" or "eternity."
The fact is: THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR. (Romans 1:20) Creation is far, far, far, far, far, far more complex than anything that man creates--especially given the fact that the Creator created from nothing, unlike men, who create with materials FROM the Creator.
THAT is the logical, rational, reasonable way to look at this universe, not the evolutionary, atheistic way.
2.) The second place where your argument falls apart is closely related to the first.
"12. Some human beings even go on to claim that the being created humans in its image instead of the more obvious, where human beings, being intelligent, but not omniscient, created the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god." --Beepbeepitsme
This is as foolish as saying that the builder is made in the image of the building; the painter in the image of the painting; the carmaker in the image of the car; and the computer-engineer in the image of the computer. RIDICULOUS!
3.) The third way in which your argument crumbles is that all religions do not--as you say-- create a designer in humans' image and decide to worship it as a god. Not all religions do this: in fact, most religions don't. The Indians is just one group of people who worshipped the planets. Hindus worship animals, believe in reincarnation, and eventually becoming a part of the nothing-ness of the universe. Buddhists desire to become part of the "Great Force." Muslims do not believe in a personal god. Satanists worship Satan as a god, despite the fact that even they don't think he created the universe. Deists believe--like the Muslims--in an impersonal god. Agnostics don't know if there's a god, and wouldn't know what He's like if there was One. Others worship nature as a whole. Some cults worship demons. Atheists--whether they be Communists, socialists, Fascists, or liberals--often worship the leaders of their causes.
So you see, your argument is accurate to only a certain percentage of people: oh, yes, Christians. How conspicuous.
4.) The fourth place you go wrong is in assuming that there is no chance whatsoever that God actually DID create man in His own image, actually DID reveal this to man, and actually DID inspire the writing of the Bible. This is a big--and inappropriate--assumption. I guess you don't even make any claims to open-mindedness (although, of course, I really appreciate you printing my comments).
The fact is, the Judeo-Christian view of God has existed for six thousand years or more--the longest thriving view of God out there. If any view was credible on God, it would be this one. In fact, in those days it could probably be said that the existence of God was a given, especially to the Jews, since He talked to them, punished them, rewarded them, rescued them, and instructed them.
5.) The fifth and final place in which you even lack authority on this topic is that you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory. The Theory of Evolution is so full of holes. The fact that any educated person believes in it is virtually incomprehensible, unless you explain it with the Bible, that says that men love the darkness rather than the light.
You reject the parachute but you jump anyway. You reject the vest and get shot through the heart. You reject the shield and get sliced and stabbed. You reject the boat but try to swim the sea--when you can't swim.
If you had a good alternate, that would be one thing. But, of course, you couldn't have a good argument, because the "Case for the Creator" (you should read that) is the CASE FOR THE TRUTH. (Genesis 1:1; Romans 1:20; 2 Timothy 3:16,17)
COMMENT NUMBER TWO:
"I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I made a claim for big bang, multi-verses, string theory or anything else." -Beepbeepitsme
Your website has something that says: "Evolution is FACT. God is just a theory."
You have a recent article that says "Fossil Find is Missing Link in Human Evolution."
You claim to be an atheist.
You have atheistic, evolutionist quotes and resources on your site.
Please, I don't have to see your claim to evolution on this particular post, do I? If I have a straw man, than you made it.
"Because we were all created, therefore there is a creator. That is the first major mistake in the argument and why thousands of gods have been created by numerous societies.
"Instead of the hackneyed, loaded religious question of "Who created us" which presumes a creator, I prefer, as do many other people of reason, a neutral question."--Beepbeepitsme
That neutral question could be, "Where did we come from?" Is that neutral enough? Well, we can tell with our intelligence that we—and everything else in this complex universe--did not come about from a process of chance and did not come from nothing. Therefore, we had to come from a process of design. Design is not a chance process. Therefore, there must have been intelligence behind it. There must have been a designer behind. It must be bigger and stronger than anything in this universe, and must not come from this universe, for it created the universe. If that's as far as you want to take logic for now, fine, but you don't seem to want to go that far.
[note (not in original comment): his claim that thousands of gods were created to explain the origins of the universe is INCORRECT. "Little-g" gods were created to explain many things, like the sun, moon, stars, animals, nature, wind, art, poetry, music, ad infinitum. The invention phenomena of false gods is not simply the ignorant conclusion from the fascination of nature. Much of it derives from trying to ignore the One True God.]
Now, for clarity, let me analyze the entire argument:
Point One: Correct. But humans can only design with what they are supplied with. Agreed?
Point Two: Correct. Ditto first comment. Agreed?
Point Three: Partially Correct. Human beings are intelligent because of the ENTIRE definition of intelligence. Agreed?
Point Four: Correct. Agreed?
Point Five: Incorrect. Human beings did not design the universe because they were not powerful enough, not intelligent enough, they weren't around before the universe was around, human beings cannot create from nothing, and who created humans?
Point Six: Incorrect. A being more intelligent than humans is not assumed, but rather this: the universe could not have been designed from a chance process; humans--nor any other creature--could've designed the universe. THEREFORE, a being more intelligent must have.
You can't possibly be calling points 7 through 12 even so much as the "next-logical-step" argument of believers, can you? If you are, you are gravely mistaken, and I addressed those points in my first comment.
Even points 5 and 6 are not completely representative of the believers' position, as I pointed out.
And just for clarification: My statement "THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR" was clearly misunderstood. I'm not saying that the creation argues for a creator, and therefore there is one. I'm not saying that the very word "creation"--as a root--means there must be a "Creator." I'm saying that our very existences--the universe' very existence--our very complexity, our very design, PROVES--illustrates beyond the shadow of a doubt--that there is a Creator.