The reason the argument fails is that Paley emphasized giving things a single purpose. If things had multiple purposes from Paley's point of view, then it would be much more difficult to disprove this argument. This argument also shows the god of the 3 point rule. Paley showed in this argument that God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. The argument also makes a good point about how some things must have intelligent design in order to be created. This is where I believe it thrives the most. If we were to look at another argument like the ontological argument, it states that the greatest thing we can conceive exists in the mind, but it is greater in reality than in the mind, but if nothing more great that god cannot be conceived in the mind then god must exist in reality. This argument can easily be destroyed if someone simply believes that God is not the greatest thing that could be conceived. Nor does it prove the existence of God in the world physically, but mentally. While Paley's argument shows God through the "creations" he created and explains how God is the