Watchmaker argument is a bad argument for the existence of God

You acknowledge that my version of the argument is “a much fairer watchmaker analogy” and then go on to present your own, Weaker, Version. You need to engage with the argument in its strongest form, Particularly if it’s the one your opponent has presented, Otherwise your response is nothing but a strawman. I am boiling it down while you are adding things to the argument which wasn't in there. I gave you William Paley's idea about the argument and I found nothing on the lines of "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. " In what way did William Paley speak about physics or scientists? He didn't from the extract I gave that was his words. Not yours which you improved. That argument isn't William Paley's watchmaker argument instead it is it_is_me's watchmaker argument because of the additional ideas you added in. Mine was straight forward and simple whereas you are adding things which William Paley did not even say. Either you are lying by saying this is what William Paley said or own up to making it into it_is_me's watchmaker argument. Moreover, Your version isn’t even a fair representation of the Paley/Wikipedia quote you opened your second round with. Complexity is not directly referred to anywhere in that block of text, In fact it starts by asking where a stone came from"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. "= complexity. Did you even read that? The argument would be that because things such as the motion of the planets follow precise, Predictable, Equations (rather than a God constantly nudging them into place) then the universe runs like clockwork. Why does this not apply to God? Does God not run like clockwork? As God is transcended, God exists outside of time and therefore does not require a beginning/cause. This is another argument added in which it is not supported by this argument. What you have also committed is an unfalsifable claim. Meaning you cannot prove this to be the case nor can I disprove it. Instead you provided a claim which has no answer. It is like me saying unicorns exist in a universe outside of our own. I cannot prove that nor can you disprove that. No way is this going to be taken seriously because the definition of God does not state that. You and the theists you listen to have added that in. God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (Google: God define)I don’t see why the watchmaker argument is worse than any other form of inductive reasoning. This is not a rebuttal to my claim which shouldn't be taken as is even though he titled it like that. God and a watch is not comparable. We can see the watch being created so when we see a watch out in the open we can assume that the watch was created by a watchmaker, That same standard cannot be applied to universe makers. This is because we have not perceived how the universe was created since we were born after it was. Meaning we must first realise how the universe was created before we assume how this universe started. The argument’s weaknesses (e. G being an inductive argument)Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. (Google: Inductive argument)To even do inductive reasoning we must have some evidence. We have no evidence of how the universe was created therefore inductive reasoning does not work. When we have evidence of how universes are created then we can apply inductive reasoning. To summariseit_is_me fails to realise I have boiled down the argument while also still remaining true to what it is. The problem Con has is that he/she does not understand this. Instead Con thinks that his/her argument is not filled with filler instead thinks it gets straight to the point. What I would do with this argument if I was him/her would be this:1. A watch has a creator2. It is a watchmaker3. A universe has a creator4. It is God/universe creatorI did what it_is_me is incapable of doing. Making it clear what he/she means instead of adding unnecessary filler. Back to you