He claims that the entire strength of the argument that Paley proposes is based on the strength of his analogy from man-made complex objects to the complexity and purpose of occurrences within nature. It is a large jump to assume that just because we deem a watch as a complex set of parts that work together for a common goal and has a designer, and the universe is similar regarding having parts that work together, that it must have a designer. When we are starting with the watch, and trying to connect those similarities to the universe it isn’t as difficult as starting with the universe and trying to draw similarities to a watch. The watch is very specific and has a finite amount of parts in it, and when Paley is comparing this to the universe, he is comparing something finite into something that is seemingly infinite. Of course, this would seem easy to do because you will eventually always find something to compare a part in a watch to out of the infinite amount and broadness that is within the universe. With doing this it would appear there is a very large percentage of the watch that is similar to the universe so one could draw the conclusion of their strong similarity. However, when you try to compare the universe to that of a watch, you find that it is only a very small percentage of the universe that would be similar to a watch. Resulting in not being able to confidently conclude they are very like each other. It would appear this objection shows a major flaw within the argument by analogy that Paley attempted to
He claims that the entire strength of the argument that Paley proposes is based on the strength of his analogy from man-made complex objects to the complexity and purpose of occurrences within nature. It is a large jump to assume that just because we deem a watch as a complex set of parts that work together for a common goal and has a designer, and the universe is similar regarding having parts that work together, that it must have a designer. When we are starting with the watch, and trying to connect those similarities to the universe it isn’t as difficult as starting with the universe and trying to draw similarities to a watch. The watch is very specific and has a finite amount of parts in it, and when Paley is comparing this to the universe, he is comparing something finite into something that is seemingly infinite. Of course, this would seem easy to do because you will eventually always find something to compare a part in a watch to out of the infinite amount and broadness that is within the universe. With doing this it would appear there is a very large percentage of the watch that is similar to the universe so one could draw the conclusion of their strong similarity. However, when you try to compare the universe to that of a watch, you find that it is only a very small percentage of the universe that would be similar to a watch. Resulting in not being able to confidently conclude they are very like each other. It would appear this objection shows a major flaw within the argument by analogy that Paley attempted to