William Paley begins his “Design Argument” by listing the key differences between two obviously different objects: a stone and a watch. For the sake of meaningful contrast, Paley highlights three distinctive properties that the former lacks and that the latter possesses. In this article, I will present these properties and explain how Paley uses one of them to argue that the watch requires an intelligent designer. From there, I will explain how he ultimately formulates his argument for the existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Paley observes that the first distinguishing feature of the watch is its possession of complex moving parts. He lists some of these parts – a cylindrical case, an elastic spring, a flexible chain, a series of wheels, an index and a glass dial – and explains how they work together to give movement to the watch. Paley also observes that there is something special about the movement of the pieces themselves; the “equal measured progression,” or regularity, of which the index finger moves around the watch face also signifies a major distinction between the watch and the stone. These differences indeed give the watch a particular distinction; However, it is the concept of functionality that forms the central point of Paley's "design argument". The watch performs a task whose effectiveness can be monitored and evaluated. In the case of stone, there is no functionality to access. Thus, the watch has the property of teleology while the stone does not. Paley builds the rest of his argument from this premise. The “design argument” is best understood when divided into two phases. In the first phase of his argument, Paley asserts – by syllogism – that an object, like a watch, must involve an intelligent designer. It does this by using inference toward the best explanation, or a “best fit” reason attributed to the seemingly inexplicable phenomenon. Phase II is an argument by analogy, or an argument based on the assumption that because two things share similar qualities, they probably share other qualities as well. Here, Paley seeks to prove that because a watch and the Universe share notable common characteristics, they also share the characteristic of having an intelligent designer. He expands this theory to deduce that the creator of the Universe is God. Let's take a closer look at Phase I of Paley's argument. Using a somewhat simple syllogism, Paley is able to link the possession of teleology to an intelligent designer. His chain of reasoning consists of two crucial premises: 1) that functionality involves determination and 2) that this determination in turn leads to an intelligent designer. From these statements, Paley is able to deduce that the functionality must point to some sort of intelligent designer. I will now expand on each of these premises and elucidate their respective concepts. The intricate parts and orderly nature of the watch are integral to its function. Because the watch has a specific use, we can in turn evaluate its functionality: either it works or it does not work. By saying that something “works” or not, we imply that a certain goal has been achieved or not. This goal is the purpose of building the watch. Paley points out that if the different parts of a watch were put together in any other way, the object would lose its overall usefulness. The specificity in which the parts must be assembled leads us to assume/