1. The Universe is designed. or Everything in the Universe is designed
2. All design requires a designer.
3. Therefore, There must be a Designer.
A. Problems with this argument are revealed when you explore the meaning of "design." Try plugging in such synonyms as "patterned," "regular," "ordered," "structured," or "purposeful." Notice that if you plug in "patterned," for instance, premiss 1 is true, but premiss 2 is probably false. A random set of dots has pattern (and indeed some order.) Substituting "purpose" or "purposeful" will make 2 more likely true, but then 1 becomes false or at least doubtful; that is, you would have some difficulty in stating the purpose of all sorts of natural things or events. If the purpose of the universe is so clear, state what it is; AND, how does each and everything support or lead to that purpose? Notice that it wouldn't do much good to use a premiss like "everything in the universe was purposely designed by an Intelligent Being" since it would beg the main question we are asking, viz., does a good, all powerful, intelligent Being exist?
B. So, showing that things have a certain amount of pattern or orderliness won't get very far. To exist is to have some pattern or other, so it would be utterly trivial to say that things have pattern. If this isn't clear think of the opposite, that is, what would it be for something to have no pattern?. Also notice that, to a great extent, it is humans who give things pattern, and order. You have, surely, spent some time looking at clouds and making out the various shapes as some familiar object. We give order to things or groups of things in order to understand them.
C. Finally, often (perhaps always?) when we talk of the order, structure or pattern of something we are implicitly comparing it to some model. (Think of a dress pattern.) Modern art often looks disorderly - chaotic- precisely because it is challenging the models of symmetry and order which we inherited from the Greeks via Renaissance artists. What about the universe? "If universes were as numerous as blackberries then we could say ours was designed, otherwise it is nonsense." That is without a comparison (a model) it is meaningless to say that the universe (or anything else) exhibits design.
An analogical argument states: X has property p; X is like or similar to Y, therefore Y has property p. Example: The last Ford I had was a good car, the car I am buying is a Ford, therefore it will be a good car.
1. Paintings are done by humans. (We all have "created" art works.)
2. Houses are designed by architects. We have observed the building process.
3. Ships are like houses and thus must be designed by ship builders.
4. A telescope is like other artifacts and must be designed.
5. A human eye shows a great deal of complexity and the parts work together, therefore it must be designed by something or someone similar to the way that a telescope is designed. (and so on, for everything in the universe!?)
6. The universe shows design and purpose, so, it must be designed.
_________________________
Therefore, There must be an Intelligent Designer.
Rule: The more X and Y are alike the stronger the argument; the less alike the weaker. Furthermore, the more a house and an eye are made to be alike in order to draw the inference the more God is made to be like a human.
The key to any analogical argument is the degree to which the analogs (the things being compared) are similar, that is, how similar are paintings to houses?* Here there is some similarity, we recognize both as being human artifacts, but that is just to say that we have experienced them being produced by human beings. Houses and ships do seem similar so we assume, even without experience, that ships too are built by human shipbuilders. Now the way that the parts of an eye work together is certainly fascinating, but think (it shouldn't be too hard) of ways that eyes are different than telescopes, ships and other human artifacts.
You might want to say that despite these differences that the way the eye works still needs some explanation. However, there are a number of possible naturalistic explanations for the way the eye works in a great deal of detail, e.g., the theory of evolution. Therefore, one is not forced to the conclusion that there must be an Intelligent Designer; in fact it wouldn't explain any of the things we would like to know about the eye. This explanation does not seem to explain why there is such a difference in the capacity for sight of different creatures. Nor does it explain why some people can see better than others.
Finally, the argument from Design directly leads to the Problem of Evil. If your house gets built without closets, the architect is at fault. The structure of the argument seems to make God out as very much like a human being, as such, it seems to lay the responsibility for the imperfections in nature and in the nature of human beings directly at the door of the Designer..
The problem of evil is difficult enough if you ask the question: How can the evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely perfect Being? The argument from Design seems to indicate that God fully and consciously built the evil right into the nature of the universe.
Suppose that you are an intelligent alien who has come to this earth and galaxy. You are told that Earthlings believe that the Universe was created by a Being who is somewhat similar to ourselves except every so more powerful and intelligent. Then you are asked to speculate on the moral nature of such a Being. Just from the experiences available to you by cruising around the world what sort of attributes would you give to such a Being? Perfect Goodness? Seems unlikely.
* And, how similar are all the human artifacts to natural objects or the universe as a whole?