William Paley begins his "Design Argument" by enumerating the key differences between two obviously dissimilar objects: a stone and a watch. For the sake of meaningful contrast, Paley emphasizes three distinctive properties lacking in the former and possessed by the latter. In this article I will introduce these properties and explain how Paley uses one of them to argue that the clock needs 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Paley notes that the first distinguishing feature of the clock is its possession of complex, moving parts. It lists some of these parts – a cylindrical case, an elastic spring, a flexible chain, a set of wheels, an index, and a glass dial – and explains how they work together to provide movement for the watch. Paley also notes that there is something special about the movement of the parts themselves; the “uniform measured progression,” or regularity, by which the index moves across the dial also indicates an important distinction between the watch and the stone. These differences indeed give the watch a special distinction; however, it is the concept of functionality that serves as the crux of Paley's “Argument from Design.” The watch completes a task that can be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness. In the case of the stone there is no functionality to access. Therefore, the clock 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 broken down into two phases. In Phase I of his argument, Paley claims – through syllogism – that an object, such as a watch, must imply an intelligent designer. To do this it uses an inference to the best explanation, or a “best fitting” reason assigned to the seemingly inexplicable phenomenon. Phase II is an argument by analogy, or an argument made on the assumption that because two things share similar qualities, they probably share other qualities as well. Here, Paley tries to demonstrate that, since a clock and the Universe share notable common characteristics, they also share the characteristic of having an intelligent designer. He expands this theory to infer that the creator of the Universe is God. Let us take a closer look at Phase I of Paley's argument. Using a rather simple syllogism, Paley manages to link the possession of teleology to an intelligent designer. His chain of reasoning consists of two crucial premises: 1) that functionality implies purpose and 2) that this purpose in turn leads to an intelligent designer. From these statements Paley is able to deduce that functionality must point to some sort of intelligent designer. I will now analyze each of these premises and clarify their respective concepts. The complex parts and uncluttered nature of the watch are integral elements of its function. Since the watch has a specific use, we can evaluate its functionality in turn: either it works or it doesn't work. By saying that something “works” or doesn't “work,” we are implying that some sort of goal has or has not been achieved. This goal is the purpose of building the watch. Paley points out that if the individual parts of a watch were assembled in any other way, the object would lose overall usefulness. The specificity with which the parts must be assembled leads us to assume that the watch was probably not born accidentally. The fact that the watch actually has a purpose implies that there must be someone or something behind that purpose, because you cannot have a/