The Watchmaker Argument for God is Logically Sound

Straw Man. This argument asserts that atheists believe the universe happened by chance, when this is not true. The question then becomes, what do atheists believe caused the universe? False Analogy. The Watchmaker Argument assumes that because 2 things are alike in 1 or more respects, they are alike in some other respect. If we ignore this, we could say that because both the watch and universe are complex, and the watch was made in the 16th century, the universe was made in the 16th century. The only important parts are that both the universe and the watch are complex and have a beginning. False Cause. The argument asserts that complexity and order can only be caused by a designer. To the contrary, however, it is quite the opposite. The Watchmaker argument confuses correlation with causation when it comes to complexity and designers. The watchmaker argument does assume that complexity can only come from a designer. However, that is a different assumption. Ignores Evolution. We know for a fact that nature can, has, and does produce remarkably complex organisms due to evolution by natural selection, something ignored in the argument. Evolution only works once you have a life form, a universe, a star, and a planet. Black and White Fallacy. Since the Watchmaker argument ignores another possibility, it also commits a Black and White Fallacy. What is the other possibility? Prior Knowledge. The reason that we recognize a watch as designed actually has nothing to do with complex and purposed it is. Rather, it is because we already know that the watch was designed. By contrast, we have no examples of designers in nature, but trillions by evolution. Suppose you were shown two paintings. One is a splatter painting, whereas the other one was not a famous painting, but an accurate depiction of the human form (or something like that). We can assume that even though we did not know the non-famous painting, it was designed, whereas the other one, we cannot be sure. We consider anything sufficiently complex designed. Special Pleading. This argument"s core purpose asserts that complexity requires a designer. However, if we extend this logic, clearly God must be very complex. Therefore, he must have had a designer, and it cannot be himself, according to the Kalam Argument, common sense, and the Immaterial Designer argument by use of basic physics and thermodynamics. This is where the subtlety in the logic comes in. The other premise that I showed in my argument is that a watch did not exist at one point in time and now it does. Theists believe that God is eternal. Contradiction. The argument initially assumes that the watch is distinct from nature, by indirectly claiming that the universe is uncommon and random. However, it then states the universe is complex. Which one are we to believe? Implies More. After seeing that watch, imagine if you then saw beside it a shoe. Would you assume a watchmaker made that? No, but a shoemaker did. Clearly the same applies to God. The same argument could be made without the nature, but just a floating watch. The watch is the universe, the field is irrelevant. As for the second part, all that means is now we have two people, one who created a watch, one who created a shoe. If you are saying that the watchmaker argument does not rule out polytheism, that is true. Creatio Ex Nihilio. The Watchmaker argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing, and is also created by nothing. This is not true and has never been demonstrated. This simply puts the question back one step. Suppose I saw a computer rather than a watch. All this is saying is pushing the problem back to the computer parts, and the same argument applies. Doesn"t support theism. Even if we accept the conclusion, it would not prove a god exists, let alone a very specific one. All it would say is that the universe had a complex designer. Define god. What is the difference between a complex designer and a god? This does not prove that there is a single god, certainly, but it does prove that a god exists. Incompetent Design. This logic is inconsistent. An all powerful and all loving God would surely not create organisms with this type of mediocre at best design (flaws in nature such as windpipe= food pipe, etc- something that fits natural selection but not intelligent design). First of all, that assumes that evolution and theism are incompatible, which is already a false assumption. I know that this is a Wikipedia page, but I think it provides some useful information: https://en.wikipedia.org...