ot know about the watch. We do not know how the watch was made. We somewhat know the usefulness of the watch. We make an educated guess that the watch contains some type of purpose. Like the watch and its watchmaker is very simple and the universe and God is very complex. So in the end Paley concludes that the watch is the unvirse and the watchmaker is like the universe maker except for the universe maker is a much creative being is more of an intelligent creator and designer and in the end God is in existence and brings an end to a means. (Pojman,Louis P.(1999)) It was not all contrast after all. Different as they were – in the eras they lived in most of their premises – These two great philosophers had their last premises in common In both of Aquinas’s last premise and Paley’s seventh premise are arguing that nature, although; some believed nature came about through scientific evolution. It is true, nature was created through evolution but evolution must have been created by a supreme higher intelligence such as God, or they’re of a God. Aquinas believed that in order to have harmony and order in nature there must be a higher intelligent creator because since nature is a part of the universe and since God created the universe; he concludes that God created and controls all we know of today. Paley argued primarily the same premise. He argued the laws of metallic nature, which states that, a wrist watch found in nature, although; we are ignorant to the knowledge of where the watch was created and who created it, the watch must have been created by a higher intelligence or a great designer. With the conclusions made from Aquinas and Paley, we can conclude that although they both took different standpoints they both have the same final conclusion, it is possible to prove Gods existence and God exists even if society differs in opinion....
