Careful there Donnie, you might actually expose the fact that all analogies break down under close inspection and should only be used to make a point. Which is exactly how they were used, they should not be extended to try and support an absurdist argument.

Donnie,

Thanks for your post.

In 1615, when Harvey realised the heart is a "pump" aiding the circulatory system, it was soon after human technicians invented the mechanic pump. The mechanic pump, authored, if you wish, was template for the "discovery of", not the evolution, of the heart. Although, the heart is the more complex, it is a product of circumstance; whereas, the mechanical pump,is a deliberate,"imitative" consequence applying human cognition. Humbling, is it not? Even a weak anthropromophic principle [non-human human-like authorship] need not apply to the heart's development of time.

Philo,

Did I represent you fairly, regarding the soul and your [assumed] penchant towards the OT? Shifting to the NT, did Jesus loose his human soul when he died? Relatedly, did Jesus commit suicide? What is the consequence of suicide on a soul, if any

Donnie I disagree but after considering it you pose something interesting. Robots , computers, marina's and basket balls are man made. Who made the spalding basket ball? Humans did. Everything preplanned , designed then constructed was done so by man (not withstanding birds nests, beaver dams, ect). The claim of god says of god that god mimmics man. Man designs so god designs the way man does. Man lives in spatial existence , so god lives in spatial existence. Man has laws, gods laws mimicks mans laws. Man constructs values , gods values mimick mans values. Man is on Earth , god focuses on earth where man is. Gods require the worship of man. Who made us? Who made the moon ? Who? questions can only lead to one conclusion = Man is god. This so because the only thing in existence which does everything a god is supposed to do is mankind.This question of who leads directly back to god being the ego.

On a technological note it is often said that the imaginings of science fiction lead to future advances. Moon landings , air craft, big brother ect. There is a wiff of evidence here that through the spititual imaginings of history God is being created for real as man is becoming god. Theology is the pasts science fiction. Theoretically in the distant future for instance humans could be created through genetics, be ressurected through genetics and nano technology and even become immortal through bio-renewal. Perhaps the authors of the new testament and scriptures of other religions are the Jules Vernes of the past.

Bugsy, i'm not 100% sure what you are saying. I think if an analogy breaks down then the point it is meant to support falls along with it.

Oliver, your welcome. You may very well be correct, but you do illustrate one of the main points i guess i am trying to make in this discussion:
"the heart is the more complex, it is a product of circumstance".
"Product of circumstance". This is the article of faith of the materialist. Just as some have conviction in authorship. It is this question of fluke or authorship, remaining unestablished, that when one affirms a position they close one eye and cease to search for truth but instead seek only confirmation.

West, quite a good post, interesting spin.
Only again with the ego. Maybe you can define it for me? All i know is it's an unscientific term. The main references on it are either Freud's abstract theory on the structure of the mind or the spritualist or Buddhist concept.

Ok Donnie, let me explain. As an example lets look at a big flat rock and a wooden chair. Now, a rock can be analogous to a chair because you can sit on them both, while having lunch or whatever. You can move them about etc. the similarities are indeed many fold, but the point has been made about how both can serve the same purpose and share some properties. However, if you take the position that a rock is just like a chair in that a person made it, you would be mistaken. This is because a rock is not a chair. They do not share the same origins, and general similarities in their origins cannot be inferred by similarities in a limited subset of their properties. A rock may be used as a chair, but a chair cannot necessarily be used as a rock.

A computer can used an an example of an emergent phenomenon, of how a whole thing can be greater than the sum of its parts. It can even be used as an analogy to describe how "programs" can interact with each other to produce decision making and behaviours etc in processes of information exchange. Indeed the similarities can be many fold. But it isn't a human, nor even biological, and inferences on the origins of both (ie both having a "creator" or "author") are stupid because the analogy was taken too far.

Bugsy, that's a little too close to doublethink for my liking.
It's like saying "I can use this analogy to argue my point, but you can't use it to refute my point".

If you are using the "computing world" as an analogy in a debate about the possibility of authorship and/or superintendence (eg. gods and/or souls) in the natural world, and using it, i might add, to support a claim that there is NO such authorship or superintendence in the natural world, then you cannot ignore or exclude the fact that authorship and superintendence - in the form of human mind agents - is EXTREMELY prevalent and possibly inseparable in the computing world.
Therefore, either the computing world analogy is actually not analogous to the natural world at all OR it really lends itself more to the claim that there is or might be authorship and/or superintendence in the natural world.

Furthermore, you along with some other posters here are blatantly begging the question by presupposing that there is only physical existance and then arguing on this premise towards the identical conclusion.