The Watchmaker Argument for God is Logically Sound

I MUST ADMIT THIS IS NOT MY NORMAL STYLE OF DEBATING. HOWEVER, I FEEL THIS LIST FORMAT WILL BE ADEQUATE FOR THE DEBATE. LISTED BELOW IS THE ARGUMENT AS MY OPPONENT PUTS IT, ALONG WITH THE FLAWS WITH IT. ANY ONE OF THESE FLAWS ALONE IS DEVASTATING, LET ALONE ALL 12.WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT Imagine you are walking across a field, take a nap, wake up, and see a watch lying upon the ground. You wouldn’t assume that it had come together by chance, because it is too complex. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer. Because life and the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must have had a designer. FLAWS Straw Man. This argument asserts that atheists believe the universe happened by chance, when this is not true. 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. 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. 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. Black and White Fallacy. Since the Watchmaker argument ignores another possibility, it also commits a Black and White Fallacy. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). Clearly, this argument is flawed.