Here's something else amusing about their proof: At one point, he held up a copy of the Mona Lisa and claimed that we know simply by observing that the painting had a painter. But unless he was holding up the Mona Lisa itself and not a copy of it, here's what his little observation would really reveal:
1. The Creator was a machine, not a human.
2. The creation is less than 100 years old.
3. The creation was printed, not painted.
4. The creation is identical to any number of other creations.
5. The creation was executed in one day, perhaps even in one hour, with no mistakes, no changes, and only a single layer applied in a single stroke.
Very amusing, if you think about how different the conclusions we would come to if we looked at the original painting instead of the copy. And yet, he kept going on about how "the painting is absolute observable proof there was a painter." Sorry, but observation alone of a copy of the Mona Lisa tells us nothing whatsoever about who or what created the Mona Lisa...which makes me wonder: Do you think that the Earth might be a photocopy knocked out by some hack demi-deity who was copying the work of another? It's certainly worth thinking about, if we follow this guy's example.
Again, weak analogies like this can go wrong in so many ways, and it is very often only sensory experience that helps us realize when our analogy has gone wrong. We might just as well conclude that whatever made the universe had a lifespan of under 150 years and was born from the womb of his mother based on an argument from design. Given the lack of sensory experience between men and "God," the teleological argument for God's existence can tell us nothing conclusive about the origins of the universe.
