¶ … Watchmaker Argument by William Pailey he states that because a watch most evidently has to have had a maker, that due to the complexity of nature as compared to the complexity of the watch, that our world must also have had a maker as well. Pailey concludes that based on the Watchmaker argument that the "atheist position is an absurdity of the weakminded" (para 4). This is an interesting argument, and certainly one that is without a certain amount of strength. There are a number of questions that are left hanging in the wind however, with Pailey's premise. Pailey surmises in paragraph four that for every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design for the watch, an equal amount of works exists in nature except that nature's design is greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computations. In other words, Pailey argues that no matter how complex the instrumentation of the watch, nature's complexity exceeds all computation.

Additionally, Pailey discerns in paragraphs two and three that because of the many complexities of the watch, that the watch must have had a maker, and not just any maker at that, but a maker that understood the watch's mechanism and designed its use. It could therefore be said that Pailey believes the watch could not have just landed on the ground at his feet (such as the rock did) but that is had to have been contrived and that its maker knew its purpose and designed it to accomplish that purpose.

Also in paragraph three, Pailey...

Attacking those that disagree with him in such an aggressive manner does not necessarily ensure that Pailey is correct. In fact, some would bristle against such attacks and rather than listen and debate, they would offer their own condescending opinions. One of their arguments might be stated in the following manner; there is plenty of beauty and splendor in the world that could have easily come about due to the very harsh characteristics of nature itself. The Watchmaker argument might easily be construed to offer another point-of-view that shows exactly just how far mankind has come, and that mankind itself created this complexities that Pailey alludes to, and not some unseen hand of a distant, and unseen Creator.
Pailey implies that only simple minded folk would not see the complexities of a rock as compared to the complexities of a watch (para 1) and not conclude that like the creator of the watch, there must also be a creator of the world. Pailey concludes that nature itself is of such complexities that to preclude any other thought of a non-Creator would be absolute madness.

Pailey's construction of the reasoning…