my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:
a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.
That depends on your definition of "robot".
Robots are generally defined as man-made machines. Machines can be made out of organic components, such as a wood casing, but when discussing robots they aren't organic themselves. In fact, if they are sufficiently organic with machine minds it's no longer a robot, it's an android.
But regardless of the specific word you use, we're talking about things that are man-made by definition.
At best it's merely evidence that this particular creation was designed, it's not evidence that all self-replicating things are designed.
b) from a physical perspective a walking creature (a penguin for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).
Nope. Organisms aren't robots. By definition. Even if humans made an organism from scratch, nobody would call it a robot.
You're attempting to make a claim by playing with definitions. The fact that you're using the phrases "theoretical" and "can be considered as" demonstrates that you're just stretching an analogy. Here's the essence of your argument:
1) Robots are man-made.
2) Penguins are robots.
3) Therefore penguins are made by God.
Or, even simpler:
1) Penguins are man-made.
2) Therefore God created penguins.
It's complete nonsense. Penguins aren't robots, and the conclusion either doesn't follow from the premises or it's merely a tautology. Either way, this is a terrible argument.
Your whole argument is founded upon an assumption of intelligent design, when that's what you're attempting to prove. Begging the question isn't evidence, it's merely a logical fallacy.
But, even worse, you're assuming that if something
could be the product of a mind, then it
has to be the product of a mind. This is obviously false. Just because I could make a rock, doesn't mean that all rocks are made by intelligent processes.
Even if penguins
could be made by a mind, that isn't proof that they
were a product of a mind. You have to look at the actual evidence of where things came from to determine where they came from, you can't merely assume via. inappropriate analogy.
The the fact is, the evidence isn't that penguins are hand-crafted by elves, but instead that they, and all other life on the planet, are the product of billions of years of evolution. You can't merely ignore all of that evidence, you have to explain it better than evolution does.