Watchmaker argument is a bad argument for the existence of God

Thank you it_is_me for taking up this debate. "In crossing a heath, Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, And were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, That, For anything I knew to the contrary, It had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, And it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, That for anything I knew, The watch might have always been there. . . . There must have existed, At some time, And at some place or other, An artificer or artificers, Who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, And designed its use. . . . Every indication of contrivance, Every manifestation of design, Which existed in the watch, Exists in the works of nature; with the difference, On the side of nature, Of being greater or more, And that in a degree which exceeds all computation. " Watchmaker analogy (Wikipedia)1. If you found a watch lying on the ground, A reasonable person would assume that there was a creator and that this watch didn’t just assemble itself. Just because the watch behaves in a predictable manor, Following rules, Doesn’t remove the need for a creator2. Therefore, When a scientist discovers a clockwork universe, They too might assume that there is a creator behind it all. Just because the universe follows the laws of physics doesn’t remove the need for a creator. You have a much fair watchmaker analogy which are trying to make it seem more reasonable than it actually is. A better way to put it is this. 1. The watch is complex2. The watch had a designer3. The universe is complex 4. Therefore the universe had a designerI am going by this because it boils down to what the argument is instead of needless filler that you have put into it that you have added from William Paley's argument. fallacies that it commits:False analogy fallacy"An analogy proposes that two concepts which are similar (A and B) have a common relationship to some property. "False analogy (Wikipedia). Going by this you have compared a watch to the universe. Making it seem like they are the same whereas you don't know. We know that a person made a watch but we do not know who created the universe. If this is true then it must also apply to God. God is complex. Therefore God also had a designer. false cause "You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. " false cause (yourlogicalfallacyis) We know the cause of a watch. A watchmaker whereas we don't know the cause of the universe. Saying the watch was created by a watchmaker is true because we can percieve it to be the case whereas saying the universe was created by a universe creator is false because we cannot percieve it to be the case. Self refuting fallacyMentioned it in the first response so I am going to mention it here again. "A self-refuting idea is a logical fallacy that occurs when concept A is used to deny concept B, Although concept A logically depends on concept B. " Self-refuting idea (RationalWiki) The problem with this is that if we logically use this like for God it must also have a designer then that designer would also require designer. It causes an infinite regression which is why it is self-refuting.