The design argument is an argument made by analogy, and the stronger the analogy created, the stronger the argument is. There are several different versions of the design argument but some of the most famous are: Aquinas's Summa Theologica and Paley's Natural theology. Paley's argument, in the early 19th century, became the best-known and most popular. His argument is as fallows:.
Suppose you are on a deserted island and you come across a watch in the sand. Even though you know the island is deserted, you would automatically conclude that the watch could not have been the result of natural forces. Because the watch is so intricate, with its many different parts working together, it could not have come into existence without someone planning and manufacturing it. Therefore, since there is a watch there must have been a watchmaker. Now consider the complex human brain. It is far more complex than a watch and its parts work together to accomplish an event. Therefore, if a watch must be created by a watchmaker a human brain must be created by a perfect supreme being. This perfect supreme being is called god. .
Is this the most reasonable conclusion based on the analogy that the argument makes? One main argument against Paley is, if a watch is designed by a watchmaker and a human brain is designed by a perfect supreme being, who designed the perfect supreme being? Also, Paley's argument seems to crumble after reading Darwin's theory of evolution. These are the means in which to unravel the design argument.
My first argument is, "who designed the perfect supreme being?" If we state that a watchmaker is the only person who can create a watch and a perfect supreme being is the only person who can create a human brain, than the existence of this perfect supreme being can only be explained by stating there is another perfect supreme being who created "our" perfect supreme being. This creation of new perfect supreme beings would go for an infinite number of times.
