[OWK]

we can posit a "creator for the creator" and a "designer for the designer" back in an infinite chain of causation, but until you're willing to make that very first link between life and a designer, it's a moot point.

But you have made the first link between life, and a designer. And in fact, you appear (at least to me) to be suggesting that the complexity of life suggests to you, that a designer is requisite.

And so I'm asking YOU (who have made the link) how you can suggest that a designer is requisite to explain the complexity of life, but that the even greater complexity of the designer himself, doesn't require a designer?

What is your explanation?

[Map Kernow]

And so I'm asking YOU (who have made the link) how you can suggest that a designer is requisite to explain the complexity of life, but that the even greater complexity of the designer himself, doesn't require a designer?

What is your explanation?

I understand your point. You're saying that if complexity implies a designer, why doesn't the designer of the complexity have a designer?

And I'm saying, maybe he does, if as you say he's necessarily "complex" (although I'd like to know how you know).

But the real issue is the link between complexity and design. Is the kind of complexity we find in life evidence (not necessarily proof) of design or not? And you're the guy who's dodging that issue, buddy. Capisci?