Refuting arguments from analogy

Page 22 of the text A Rulebook for Arguments presents an argument from analogy which argues that the world is like a house in that it appears to have order and beauty that is analogous to the order and beauty of a house, and that it must thus have a creator just as a house has a creator in the form of an architect or a carpenter.

Arguments by analogy can be refuted (or discredited), however, through the use of disanalogies, counteranalogies, or by showing that they have unintended consequences.

List as many disanalogies between the world and a house as you can think of.

List as many counteranalogies as you can think of.

List as many unintended consequences of the analogy between the world and a house as you can think of.

How do you feel after having made these lists about the argument that the world must have a creator in the same sense that a house has a creator? Did you originally find it convincing? If so, do you still find it convincing?

Also, how easy/difficult was it for you to complete this exercise? My guess is that people who did not like the argument to begin with will have an easier time with the exercise than people who liked the argument, but I’d like to hear from you all what you found to be the case.

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!