The first time I ever heard the watch maker argument I thought it very strange. The idea that someone uneducated finds a watch in the wilderness and it is painfully obvious that the watch is designed because it is not like the natural things around it. It seems bad inductive reasoning to then postulate that the natural things around it are also designed because they were the original reference point to ascertain non-design.
If you follow it through using deductive reasoning then yes there were forces which brought the watch together, including consciousness. A mountain also has causes, but these do not apparently include a designer. Neither do the causes of trees, although there is apparent purpose, it is clear that the perceived purposefulness is due to the way the environment has shaped the needs and strengths of the tree.
This is simply the idea that things have a cause and the attribution of intelligence behind the cause is an egocentric one with no real reason behind it other than wishful/lazy thinking.
This has been an open response to:
“Every time you see a building, you know it has a builder. What proof do you need that a builder built the building even if you never saw the builder? The answer is that the building is proof that there is a builder.
Every time you see a watch, you know it has a designer. What proof do you need that there is a designer even if you never saw the designer? The answer is that the watch is itself proof that there is a designer.
When you see the universe and how it is built and designed to sustain life, what proof do you need that it has a creator even if you never saw the creator? The universe itself is proof that it must have been creative.”