Argued from design 'qua regularity'.
Unintelligent creatures each have a goal or purpose in life yet they must be led, so showing elements of design. HOWEVER: as unintelligent creatures cannot reach this purpose on their own thus a divine and intelligent being must exist to take the creature to the goal as it would not be able to do so without a God!
He uses the analogy of an ARROW:
To reach its target it must have been guided by a superior intelligence (archer). So for an animal to reach its goal it must have been guided by a superior intelligence (GOD)
A logical argument from when Aquinas believed the Earth and humans were at the centre of the universe and were God's focus BUT the world is not at the centre of the universe, the universe is in fact a complex mechanism that could exist independantly of Gods help.
The complexity of the universe could then in fact be used to further the design argument. Such a massive creation could not be anyone but God?
A prelude to the teleological argument. 1) the complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. 2) As with a watch, the complexity of X (in this case the complexities of the universe) necessitates a designer.
It doesn't function as a premisee to an argument rather than as RHETORICAL device and a preamble!! It establishes the plausability of general premise- You can tell, simply by looking at something if it is not or is the product of intelligent design. The complexities of the watch in comparison to the inticies of, for example, the HUMAN EYE, show that they could not have come about purely by chance.
Baso a comparison of a natural phenonenom to a watch.
Paley assumes properties he derives from must have a designer and can not come about from natural means. With the watch this is correct, but with natural objects it is false! That is exactly what nature does produce. The fundamental difference between watches and natural things is that you cannot argue natural things are not produced by natural things. The main variation between them is natural objects show no obvious sign of manufacture and also shown by Darwin's theory.
DARWIN: Baso natural selection. Creatures developed certain traits are best suited to the environment whcih it is inhabited in. Design is actually good functioning, just a coincidence over time.
HUME: argues that the watch is blatantly designed, created by humans unlike living creature or the universe. Also that watches are created by many designers, so is the universe? You cannot imply that they are similar causes because the universe and a watch are not enough alike. To generalise our limited experiences isn't reliable, especially as it would be to determine the universe. Also, there are many explanations for the apparent design, all the different conclusions cannot justify a designer!