This question is an indication you don’t want to engage in the line of reasoning, perhaps because you don’t like the implication of it. Just because I don’t have that object doesn’t mean you can’t imagine it. I can change the scenario to a remote tribe on an island with no contact with the outside world, and what they discover is a cell phone that has somehow appeared on their shores. For that tribe, it is the only phone that exists, and they have no idea how it was created. From their perspective, would the phone itself be empirical evidence that a phone creator exists?
If you want to be honest you can at least say yes, that phone is empirical evidence, or no it is not, then explain why you think so.
As to your question, why yes, I do have such an object. It’s called the universe. But you’ve removed it from even being discussed as empirical evidence because of dogmatically held beliefs.
Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people- probably, alas, most people - think that they are designed. -Richard Dawkins
Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. -Richard Dawkins
Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. -Richard Dawkins
Now, I know Richard Dawkins goes on to explain how the appearance design is illusory, and can be explained through natural forces, but he’s at least honest enough to admit it has an appearance of design.
I argue that the appearance of design is a very strong indication that the universe is designed.