Now, it all makes sense:
“It seems like…” isn’t an argument. It is an observation like “Ooh rainbows are pretty, it seems like they were painted on the sky” but, of course, we know that they weren’t. If they want to speculate then fine but one could equally speculate something opposite. “It seems like physics wasn’t designed. We don’t call that lack of design anything.”
Given these two opposing views we have no option but to refer to the available evidence in order to sort out the disparity. I see no evidence of a designer. I win, the teleological argument is bunk. Horrah! Can we all now have some cake or something?
SMBC does highlight how running away with a speculative idea is clearly in error. They deserve some cake just for that. It is special Internet cake. It seems tasty.
Woooooo-Hooooooo! I’m glad you like SMBC and I’m happy to see it’s making the rounds. Those who dream it and do it are friends of mine. (sorry to wander off-topic)
The amusing thing (for me) about the teleological argument, is that you can use its reasoning to ‘prove’ that convincing artificial flowers are the same as real flowers.
What this comic says could be applied to virtually any argument for the existence of god, and we really should point it out more often.
No, that being is called The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.