Imagine that you are a person who has been abandoned in the wilderness as a child by your parents and have lived off of the water of a nearby river, the meat of other animals, and the fruits on the bushes and hanging from trees. It has been 20 years since that fateful day that you were left there without a stitch of clothes to wear or any remnants of man made objects other than those that you have made yourself. As far as you are concerned, you are the only existing being of your kind. One day, while hunting for that night's meal, you come across something you have never seen before. It's shiny, gold band and frame are more solid and precisely constructed than anything you've ever seen before; it's face, which, upon closer inspection you find has an invisible cover, has magically moving pointers that point to weird symbols you've never encountered before; the material that makes up the thinner portion of the object, though it is very hard, somehow hangs limply, dangling helplessly as you hold it -- you have stumbled upon a finely made watch. Though you have had no human interaction that you can recall in your entire life, you are still an intelligent human being. Using your intelligence, you logically come to the conclusion that it was created by someone of or exceeding your intelligence. It is far too intricate and perfect to exist otherwise. You have made things in your environment and you can distinctly tell the difference between the things you have made and the things that exist independent of your intervention and so you can infer, by the same logic, the aforementioned statement. The same can be inferred of our universe. Just look around -- it is far too intricate to not have been designed and, by extension, not have a designer.
And so goes the watchmaker argument (though detailed far beyond any interpretation I've ever actually heard).
Arguments for the existence of a God have tried and failed since the inception of philosophy. From the many ontological arguments to the rather lame Wager presented by Blaise Pascal, all have fallen flat on their face and most were debunked within a few decades of their inception (and that is being generous). The Watchmaker Argument, though obviously illogical to the atheist mind, has been an argument that, for some reason or another (probably because we feel it is so ridiculous that it needs no response) people who believe in a creator continue to cling to even today, over 100 years after it's inception. You may read a simplified version of the argument in a book or hear it in a video that promotes religion. Some of the most common versions of the argument include simple statements such as "look at the trees!" or "how could this have all come from nothing??". You may even come across a video on YouTube that claims to have "Proof of God's Existence" and upon watching it you find no words, but instead pictures of natural phenomena on different planets and elsewhere in the universe. Though, as an atheist myself, I can see how ridiculous this argument is, it is easily the most common and most rarely refuted claim (which would explain why I hear it so often) I have heard since proclaiming my disbelief in a God 2 years ago. It was the only argument my father, who is otherwise a highly rational person, could conjure when presented with my arguments. In essence the watchmaker becomes the only leg that belief in God has to stand on philosophically speaking. For these purposes, I have decided to make an analogy based on the same premises that the watchmaker is based on that shows the analogy itself is flawed.
The Communication Argument
For intensive purposes, let us presupposed the details of the watchmaker argument up until just before the discovery of the watch. However, instead of discovering this watch, one day, a group of scientists looking for a plant to create a new medicine from stumble upon you. Your first reaction is shock; you had assumed your whole life that there were no beings like you in existence. The next thing you notice is that these people are making noises between each other and that they seem to be understanding what the noises the other person makes mean. You also notice that these noises are much more complex than the noises that you make. They try speaking their language to you but, naturally, you do not understand. Using bodily communication, they make it clear to you that they want to take you with them. They travel with you to an object that is floating in the water and demonstrate that they wish for you to climb on to the object with them. You follow their wishes and with that, you and the scientists travel to a nearby city. This city fills you with more fascination, but for some reason, you are particularly interested in these weird noises they have been making.
Now let us fast-forward. It has been 5 years now since you were found by these people and brought to the city and you now have a basic understanding of the English language. However, with this understanding, the one thing that fascinated you when you were found by these people has only become more fascinating over the years. How could such an intricate code for communication come about? You first assume that human beings simply created it; language was simply specifically designed by these ultra-intelligent humans. However, now that you have gotten somewhat of an education in a formal society, you remember what the scientists taught you a few years back -- never believe an assumption someone makes until you research it and can back it up with evidence. So one day you ask one of the scientists to help you unlock the answer to this question. He is unable to help but he leads you to a linguistics professor that he knows quite well that he believes will be able to. You present your questions about language to the professor and he gives you an entire background on the history of language leading all the way back to the times that cavemen roamed the earth. Taking the scientist's advice to make sure to find evidence before believing someone's claims, you ask the professor to lead you in the right direction to some sources for his claims. He leads you to a book on etymologies and a few books on the history of language. These books go back to the origin of animals and the very first, rudimentary forms of communication that even the simplest animals today can be found participating in, most of which were forms of body language, leading into the earliest forms of verbal and written communication, and finally, some time after the hominid lineage had eventually evolved into homosapiens, organized language began to slowly develop. As you read the history of different forms of communication you find that the original written languages were mainly made up of carvings on cave walls that symbolized things the early humans saw on a daily basis. As communication progressed and human symbolism became more advanced, these symbols became more organized and advanced as well. So too, you find, was the story of verbal communication. What is more is that now that you look back to your 20 years in the wilderness, you realize that without even thinking, you were communicating with other animals just as the original animals did with those that they interacted with. When you wanted food and a fox also wanted it, you would stare the fox in the eyes to let it know that the food is yours and you are willing to battle it for the rights to your food. When you were face to face with a bear you turned and ran to let the bear know that you were in fear that he may harm you. When you met the scientists, they used basic communication skills such as body language to convince you to come with them. These were all rudimentary forms of communication that you unconsciously participated in. This new knowledge led you to the evidence that communication was not created, but rather an instinct of animal life.
The same can be said about God. Though a rudimentary and uneducated assumption based on observation of our surroundings can lead us to the logic that if such a complex and brilliant environment exists, it must have a designer, if we do further research into it, we will quickly find that people who are more educated than us have spent their lives finding ample evidence that it is likely that what we see around us has a completely natural explanation that is void of an intelligent designer and that instead the idea of an "evolving" universe is a more plausible explanation.
Please evaluate my analogy and give me constructive criticism so that I can improve it. Thanks 
(for I_Guy)
)
