The teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God. The argument has an a posteriori premise which is an “after experience”, experience relying on our senses. William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics wrote a philosophical essay, The Argument from Design which debates the question of whether an intelligent designer exists. Paley takes an affirmative position on the debate question. In his philosophical essay, Paley provides both a strong argument and objection to the question being asked. Paley develops his argument using an analogy of a stone and a watch in comparing the two based on the question that if both the natural and artificial thing have a designer. Paley has readers imagine themselves coming across a stone and knowing the stone has always been there but never questioning who its designer is. Whereas coming across a watch on the ground we know that due to the complexity of the watch that there must be a watchmaker. Paley argues that artificial things such as a watch must have a maker due to the complexity of them, so all functional things with such complexity in nature must have a designer as well (Paley 46). Most know that all watches do have a designer, but just cause we have never seen said designer does not mean there is not one (Paley 47). This helps provide evidence to Paley’s affirmative position by telling readers that just because we do not know or see the maker of the stone or natural things does not mean that there is not one. Paley uses the stone as a comparison to the universe. Thus allowing readers to understand the watchmaker is to a watch as God is to the universe. By understanding that both the natural and artificial things have makers then we must question who the maker of the stone is.A strong objection to Paley’s argument would be that not everything always goes right in the universe (Paley 47). The designer of a watch meticulously puts it together so that nothing could possibly go wrong. If God is being compared to a watchmaker then they both would have diligently worked to make sure that there is no disorder, but in the universe, many things go wrong such as natural disasters, black holes, and falling meteors. The analogy fails because there is no similarity between the two objects. The watch works perfectly in order while the universe has some faults to it. David Hume writer of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion states “this argument can have a place where the objects, as in present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may difficult to explain” (Hume 56). Every hour and every minute of a day can be completely different in the universe because anything can happen. While a watch sticks to a constant pattern and there is barely room for faults. Therefore it cannot really be said that an intelligent designer created the universe just as a watchmaker designed watches because of the efforts that can be found in the universe. Both the argument and the objection were very strong but the argument persuades readers more. Although the objections states that at any time something could go wrong in the universe, the argument that Paley provides allows us to see how the comparison between the two objects show how our universe is parallel to a watch. There is such complexity to the both, our organs and the change in season are just some of the complexities within the universe while the watch is complex by how it’s meticulously assembled so that all the pieces work perfectly together in harmony. Paley does not argue that the designs of both the watch and the universe are perfect but there is such a complexity and coordination to them that there is no possible way to not have an intelligent designer behind the two. By comparing the universe and the watch, Paley allows us to grasp the sense behind the fact that no matter who the intelligent designer is for the pair, there clearly has to be one for them to exist. Paley creates an understanding that, although we know the designer behind watch and not the universe, does not mean we can completely rule out a maker of our universe.