The Evidence In The Design And Its Complexity
While the cosmological argument is based on the very existence of the universe, the argument from design (also called the complexity argument, or the physio-theological argument) is based on certain features of the universe or parts of it, the high level of complexity. According to this argument, there are phenomena in the universe with such a high level of sophistication, chief among them living beings in general and humans in particular. It is inconceivable that they were created by chance. The existence of these phenomena indicates that some intelligent Factor planned and assembled them. Suppose we were to walk in the desert and find on the sand not just a glass ball, but an elaborate and complex clock. Certainly, we would conclude that some intelligent creator designed it.
This evidence seems intuitive, so it occupies a central place in discussions about GOD’s existence. It is based not only on our intuitions, which identify the Designer's imprint in complex works but also on experience. In our experience, we have never encountered an intricate work that is clear to us that it was created by chance. We know complex works created in intelligent design (all kinds of artificial works), and we know complex works that are not clear how they were created (living beings and humans), but we do not know any complex work that we know was created unplanned. In any case, we learn from our experience and conclude that living things and humans were also created in an intelligent and planned way. The same intelligent and planning factor is GOD.
Where Does The Comparison Come From?
There are some reviews on this argument. The philosopher David Day argued that we could not make an analogy between clocks and other familiar works of art and the universe and living beings, since we know from clocks that they are man-made. Still, the universe and living beings have no idea how they were created. We can rely on our experience alone, so we have no justification for concluding that the universe and living beings were designed in a planned way like clocks.
But Day's critique is rejected because the design argument did not require an analogy or direct experience to infer the Planner's existence from the complex work. Imagine that whoever finds the watch in the sand will be a primitive tribe member who has never seen how watches are made. Will he, therefore, have to conclude that the clock was created by chance? Certainly not. The very structure of the clock as a complex, precise, and versatile system indicates the underlying design, even if we have no idea who designed it.
The Power of Intuition
Similarly, suppose any technological object is found on Mars. In that case, it will be immediately apparent that an intelligent entity designed it, even if we have never seen how such items are made. Clear intuition obviates the need for direct experience or analogy to familiar objects. And as stated above, experience teaches us about the rule that every complex object we know is intelligently created, and we have no experience that shows the opposite example. One can doubt this intuition, but as long as there is no particular reason to deny it, it certainly makes sense to trust it and deduce from it the existence of a planner, Just as we rely on intuitions in many other areas. For more information on intuitions and their reliability, see here.
Another direction of critique argues that evolution refutes the argument from design because it shows how complex beings can emerge from a simple process of mutations and natural selection without the need for a planner. But even if we assume that all the complexities that exist in nature can be created in this way (which is not clear at all and even seems unreasonable), evolution does not refute the argument from planning at all but only takes the question one step back: what explains the existence of the universe? Life, and of the processes leading to them? This is similar to someone who claims that the watch was not built by a human watchmaker but was created on an automatic production line in a factory without human hand contact. Of course, the conclusion is not that the clock was not designed, but that the factory and the production line were designed to lead to clocks. Scientifically, the conditions necessary for the appearance of life are so precise that the entire universe must be tuned with unimaginable precision from the most basic level of the laws of nature to have the potential for the appearance of life (the so-called “fine-tuning”). This is, therefore, strong evidence that it was indeed intelligently designed for this purpose.
The prevailing atheistic response to this argument is that even in our universe, there is nothing special, since there may be an infinity of other universes in which life did not appear, and from which our universe was also created by chance since it is suitable for the appearance of life. That is, it is all about a required statistical result and not deliberate planning. The great difficulty with this claim is that there is no evidence that there is an infinity of universes or any explanation for the mechanism that is supposed to create them. Why then load on our worldview an infinity of strange universes that no one has ever seen, with laws of nature entirely different from ours, instead of assuming the existence of one more factor that designed our universe, GOD?
Another widespread atheist response, brought up by Richard Dawkins in his book Is There a GOD?, is the question “Who designed GOD?” After all, if complicated things indicate an intelligent Planner who created them, it is seemingly straightforward that GOD Himself is immeasurably composed of His works, and if so, there should be someone above Him who designed him, and so on.
An Atheist Argument
As noted by the philosopher (atheist!) Daniel Kam, this is an old and unfounded argument that any philosophy student in the first year with good talent can point to his failure. For an explanation to be successful, there is no need for an explanatory answer. When we see the complexity of the world, we are asked to offer the existence of GOD as an explanation for that complexity, and this is indeed a successful explanation. Even if the question arises as to what is the explanation for the existence of GOD himself, it does not at all detract from the evidence for His existence. For example, why is this similar? Suppose there is some complex device on Mars. When we look for an explanation for the existence of the device, we conclude that the most successful explanation is that intelligent aliens created it. The existence of the device therefore constitutes evidence for the existence of intelligent aliens.
The fact that we do not know who designed the aliens themselves does not usurp our explanation for the design of the device and the aliens’ existence. An explanation can be successful and satisfying even if it is impossible to find out the whole chain of reasons that led to it. Had it not been so, the entire Big Bang theory would have been refuted as an explanation for the cosmic background radiation, For it is not known what caused the big bang itself, and even the theory of evolution was refuted because it does not explain the appearance of the first cells. In other words, an explanation can be successful even if it does not explain everything. When we ask ourselves who created the complex universe, the most successful explanation for it is GOD, and even if we do not know how to explain GOD Himself, it is irrelevant.
What Atheists Get Wrong
All this on the assumption that GOD is indeed something “complex.” Before Dawkins, many philosophers and theologians argued  that GOD is not complex at all, but merely the purpose of the raids until any definition can define it. This raises the well-known question of how simplicity is created by diversity, which was dealt with extensively in the Middle Ages, but is not of interest. What is important is that Dawkins' argument is also unfounded in this respect. GOD is not necessarily complex, and certainly not material. Our assumptions that anything complex must be planned do not apply to him, but only to complex material works that we are familiar with within this world.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.