The Watchmaker Analogy?

Hi, I'm a more recent member of the boards and a recent reader of this book and site, so I obviously have lots of questions and queries. I'm working on a project involving fallacies and religion and I'm wondering if there is any fallacy hidden in the Watchmaker Analogy. Most probably already know it, but it essentially states that the complexity of our world (using a watch as an example) implies a creator. There seems to be one there, but I can't pinpoint which one (of course, I may be wrong). Any help would be appreciated.

This hoary tale simply asserts a stalwart analogy (i.e., existing between the maker of the discovered watch and the creator of the universe, God, or at the least, intelligent design). It fails due to the weakness of the premise. The flawed premise is “a watch is like the universe.” Not hardly. It goes down hill from there.

The watchmaker analogy, as all arguments from analogy, rests on the assumption that if two things/state of affairs are similar in some known respect, are similar in other respects that are not directly observable . The similarities between the terms of analogy have to be, though, relevant. If the someone could find relevant dissimilarities between the terms of the analogy, the analogy can be weakened.

In the watchmaker analogy, the inferred existence of a creator from some basic facts of the world can be weakened by pointing out the idea that even if the creator of a watchmaker is not alive we can infer that we know it was created because there are watchmakers alive today. That is, there a people that we know there are designing watched for a living. There is no other possibility here. Besides, even if we don't have access to the identity of the watchmaker we can always find some kind of record that he existed. This a relevant dissimilarity.

Regarding the complexity of the world, it does not follow with necessity that it has a creator. We don't know about other worlds being created since the sample size we work with is 1. For instance, the complexity of the world could come about, let's say, by natural selection and random mutation. This is another relevant dissimilarity.

This is where I disagree with Bo's confirmation biased link that is filled , unknowingly, with fallacious arguments because they exploit word usage in regards to how humans attempt to conceptualize God and explain God to each other. (Take it easy on me Bo, I'm not a student...lol)
First example is the opening paragraph of his link. It says "Or intelligent aliens" which creates the homunculus fallacy, fallacy of infinite regress.(its actually an example listed on this site as fallacious reasoning in regards to how life began) This brings me to were the flaw in reasoning comes into play because of the use of the word "infinite" and how that word applied by humans to explain certain aspects of God does not actually follow what humans associate as being infinite. It is instead a way for people to over emphasize that which we cannot grasp. Which is essentially why we use infinite to explain God to each other.
Ex. God has infinite wisdom. The word infinite here is not being used to claim God or wisdom itself has no limit as in the same way it applies to a simple rule of math. Add one to a number infinitely and you infinitely get a greater number. When people say God has "infinite" wisdom, intelligence, information, etc.they simply use the word because we cannot grasp what the intelligence of a God would entail. However, God while looking in a mirror, (just as an analogy) would not say "I cannot grasp where my wisdom "ends" therefore it must be infinite". To God , Gods wisdom is understood hence it is understood where it ends and all it encompasses and therefore it is finite.
Second example,. Bo's post attempts to equate complex design to God and claims if God is exempt then that results is a special pleading fallacy, it does not. Saying that it would is in itself a fallacy of infinite regress because a more complex God had to design our God, an even more complex God had to design....etc. It once again merely misapplied the word complex in response to the over compensating way humans explain aspects of God with the word infinite. And I also agree it's an explanation that may be how humans misunderstand what we mean by complex.
I'm merely referring to God is this explanation as a concept, not as if I'm proving there is or isn't a God because.....
The argument against design does not entail logically reasonable explanations, it entails the misuse of the understanding of the nature of explanation. I will also agree that argument from design might also be a misunderstanding of the nature of explanation. If we define God with Anselms idea that "God is the greatest being of which nothing greater can be conceived", then by definition there cannot be a more complex being that designed God. I emphasize once again it is the exploitation of the word infinite in regards to aspects of God that results it what people may think are logically sound rebuttals. I disagree. But that's why we're all human, we can disagree and nobody will respond and make me read more of the same arguments like the posts before mine... Hey at least mine was an attempt at being different...
Btw, my posts sequence of letters might randomly become infected with a virus and result in an extremely more intelligent explanation than what I typed, but I wouldn't put my faith in such an absurd thought.....yeah I know DNA, mutation, selection etc......And yes, the universe isn't like a watch, by all that humans have applied complex to, the universe has examples in it far more complex than the simple combination of springs and gears that make up the watch as used in the argument. The argument isn't comparing the complexity of the watch to the universe. The argument is saying that nothing more complex can be extracted from a set of finite complexity assuming the universe is of finite complexity. When the universe is proven to be of infinite complexity then we got us one helluva universe to see.
Hey at least I attempted a different explanation. I'll even attempt a logical explanation that conception cannot be claimed to be limited therefore Anselms explanation assumes what we can conceive, which isn't a proven proposition. I don't care, I'll got out on a limb and try a counter to anything, that's the fun.

I would charge faulty analogy.

The relevant property that must be shared is that of design, the premise that the universe was designed needs to be defended.

I realize this is impossible but the person cannot simply take it for granted that the universe was designed because it appears that way.

I think the argument fails simply because it is wrong about one of its facts. The argument is:

Watches are complex, too complex to occur naturally.
I see a watch.
Therefore the universe did not occur naturally; i. e. there is a force that created the universe.

The first statement is wrong. As others have pointed out, the universe is a vast space. Speaking strictly by probability, it is more likely that there is life on other planets in the universe than that there is not . By the same reasoning, it is possible for a watch to occur naturally somewhere in the universe.

Arguments get very interesting when we're dealing with infinity!