The parts of a whole is assumed to have the same properties of the whole. It is possible that, on a whole, a company is very effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they all are.
If I say that the brick wall is rectangular, therefore the bricks that make up the brick wall are rectangular. This would be the fallacy of division. It’s fairly simple and is not a common fallacy used among theist and atheist debates.
Just like the fallacy of composition, color in some cases seem to defy these two fallacies. If the whole brick wall is red then, logically speaking the parts can’t be red. We know from observation that this is just not true. Parts of a car can be different color, but also could be the same color. Color can be controversial with these two fallacies.
Parts of car would not have the same qualities as the whole car. A Hood cannot drive and an engine is useless by itself.
A building has many rooms, but that doesn’t mean every room is made up of many rooms.
A sandwich contains many different types of foods, but that doesn’t mean that every type of food in the sandwich has a combination of many types of food.
The creation is complex, therefore the creator who created the creation must be complex as well. Your assuming that thing that made the creation would have the whole attributes of the creation. Just because the creation is complex doesn’t mean that the creator would be complex. This commits the fallacy of division.
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition and should not be used in debate. The fallacy of division can be used inappropriately by all debaters of the spectrum. The point is not to assume that the parts of the whole are the same as the thing that makes it up.