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?"Well this is a classic example of dodging the question. However, I will fuel your appetite for misrepresentation. Atheists generally believe the Big Bang is what caused the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE, but 'before' that, our understanding of physics gives out. What is to say the universe had a cause at all? You have the BOP."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."OK, sure. But the point (which you missed) was that the same 'logic' (or the lack thereof) could be applied to anything and lead to ridiculous conclusions, showing how faulty the argument."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."Actually, it does. The argument does this by asserting that one would assume a complex thing can exclusively come from a designer, in premise 3."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."Not necessarily true, Mr. Video Creator. Even if we accept this, your response is still irrelevant.Black and White Fallacy. Since the Watchmaker argument ignores another possibility, it also commits a Black and White Fallacy.What is the other possibility?It ignores evolution by means of natural selection."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."Again, we DO know that both paintings were designed, because that is the definition of the painting it's how we define a painting. This rebuttal is just factually wrong."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."If theists believe God is eternal, 1: Where is the evidence? 2: Why would you use a non eternal watch as your metaphor for God's creation in the Watchmaker Argument? and 3: You flatly just ignored the question. What subtlety are you talking about? Before Earth. there were no humans and so the concept of time was and is irrelevant to this argument. Again, you are contradicting yourself while simultaneously avoiding the question."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?"Hello? You just ignored this argument. Maybe it was my bad for paragraphing poorly."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."No, you don't see. The watch was pre designed by humans and is a part of nature. It doesn't rule out polytheism, so thanks for that."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."What? Computer parts? I don't follow. If the same argument applies, wouldn't it favor me? Please explain this."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."I just googled 'God'. Here's your definition. A deity is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred. OK, so the difference is fuzzy because God exists as a concept in the mind, (please don't use the Ontological Argument), and there are several different interpretations of him. It blatantly does NOT prove any 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:I read the article. All it says is that God 'works in mysterious ways' and so we essentially shouldn't question things that APPEAR flawed. This is simply an argument from ignorance. Natural selection and theism are pretty incompatible. Theism by definition is the opposite of the scientific method, whereas evolution is not.https://en.wikipedia.org......