What do you think of this argument...?

Question

"If you found a painting, you would know that the painting did not choose it's own color. Since nothing can pick it's own color, and since colors are abundant in the universe, there must be a supreme painter, or God"

Fallacious? How so?

Answer 1

It is just that, an argument.

But it is God's word that brings conviction.

Answer 2

If you're going to say that, you might as well just say, nothing can create itself, so there must be a creator. I'm not sure what the painting part adds to the argument. Faithful adherents to the religion of scientism undoubtedly will point out that molecular properties determine color. Then the question becomes, nothing can choose its own molecular properties, so there must be a molecular designer.

Answer 3

Well, fallacious in the leap of logic. In wikipedia it is called hasty generalization:

"Hasty generalization, is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population. By induction we find that hasty generalizations by induction can be logically accurate if they are the specification of a broader hasty generalization."

You went from the simple step that say a painting does not choose its own color, to EVERYTHING does not choose its own color.

In fact, there are animals that CAN choose their own color, chameleons, for instance. And therefore, your generalization is incorrect.