The Watchmaker Argument is one of the most famous, and robust, arguments for Intelligent Design. Human beings, by instinct, recognise the design in an object based on its specific and irreducible complexity. There is no natural way for something like a clock, a car, a computer etc. to form.
But I'd like to put my own spin on this and point out that just as there is no natural way for the clock to form, there is also no clockwork way for a clock to form. When you study a clock, you can find out how it works now that it does exist, but none of that can actually point to how the clock was made. Whether you believe the clock spontaneously arose, or the significantly more likely "theory" that it was made by a human being, nothing within the clock can tell you how it was made.
This seems axiomatic. Even living organisms, which have the ability to produce others of their own kind (and, it's worth highlighting, of their own kind), do not have any sort of ability to create themselves. If there is no original reproductive system in a pre-existing organism, that organism cannot come into existence. Thus, not even self-replicating objects can be studied to determine their own origins.
Thus, Naturalism is, itself, a patently absurd assumption. It is simply illogical to look to the natural world in some vain and misguided attempt to understand its origins. In fact, when we do look to the natural world, what we find is that it seems intent on destroying us, and everything we stand for.
For starters, we have the first law of thermodynamics, which effectively states that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remains the same. Neither matter, nor energy, can be created, nor destroyed. Already this is problematic for atheists, as there are only three possible conclusions:
We are wrong about the first law.
We are right about the first law, and the universe is infinitely old.
We are right about the first law, but the origins of matter and energy are supernatural.
The first possibility is somewhat fair. Human beings are fallible, and so even the things we are most sure of could, in some way, be wrong. But there are two problems with arguing this way. The first is that other than endlessly second guessing ourselves, we have no reason to assume "we could be wrong" = "we are wrong". Furthermore, the only real reason to assume this is for sake of our commitment to Naturalism. That is, we are apparently so sure about Naturalism that we abandon our observations about the natural world if they lead us to other conclusions. This seems backwards.
The second problem is that, quite simply, we can only argue from what we do know now, rather than what we might know in the future. If, at some future time, the first law becomes obsolete, then Theists will have to reassess our argument here. For now, however, the first law of thermodynamics has been well established by experimental evidence, and forms the basis of a lot of things we do in our lives.
But anyone who accepts the first law is faced with two conclusions. The Naturalistic conclusion is that since matter and energy cannot be created, they weren't created. They've simply always been here. A challenge for such people: Sit patiently for an infinite amount of time. At the end of that infinite amount of time, I will give you $20 billion. It should be obvious that my promise is an abysmal "get rich quick" scheme. You cannot reach the end of an infinite. Thus, the fact that we are even here to have this discussion means there must be a definite beginning!
This leaves us only with one final conclusion: Origins are supernatural. This would explain why we exist in spite of an otherwise immutable natural law that would mean we never could. When you allow for the supernatural, which nothing compels us to avoid, the impossible fact of our existence ceases to be impossible.
Of course, this is where atheists will bring in Ockham's Razor, but this actually works out in our favor as Theists. Ockham's Razor actually slices atheism in half, first of all because Naturalism is an assumption, just as Theism. One side assumes the natural world is all there is, just as the other side assumes the supernatural exists. But as I have already shown in this article, and will continue to do so, Naturalism is an unworkable assumption that leads to our conclusion (that being "we exist") being impossible. Therefore, Theists, and in particular Christians, have the advantage when it comes to Ockham's Razor.
So, moving on, we also have the second law of thermodynamics. The mere mention of this law is often enough to make atheists chant "you don't understand science!", because, as they correctly point out, the second law only applies in a closed system. We'll get to that after we have defined the second law.
The second law of thermodynamics, known also as the law of entropy, states that the matter and energy in a given system tends towards its most probable distribution. Simply stated, order tends towards disorder, rather than disorder becoming more ordered.
The objection that this only applies to a closed system refers to the fact that order can increase when outside energy is introduced. A closed system is defined as when a system cannot exchange energy or matter with its surroundings. In this case, entropy increases. In an open system, in which the system in question can exchange matter and energy with its surroundings, entropy may actually decrease.
There are two main problems with this objection, however. The first is that even an open system will not necessarily become more ordered. If you set fire to your car, it won't go faster, it'll quickly become a useless pile of undrivable scrap. Even an open system requires some method of harnessing useable energy in order to decrease entropy.
Second, as the first law establishes, the universe actually is a closed system! It cannot exchange matter or energy with its surroundings. Therefore, the universe is winding down towards entropy, also known as the "heat death". I could have skipped this entire article just by going to the heat death, because most atheists already acknowledge that this is where we are heading, based on these well-established laws of science. The universe, it is widely acknowledged, is winding down, and there is no possible way to wind it back up.
So what wound it up in the first place? More accurately, who? When you find an object like a watch or a car, or even something more simple like a box, you can skip the nonsense babblings about whether it was designed or not. You know, by instinct, that someone made these things, and that nothing within these things is sufficient to find out who that designer is. But then how do you go about it?
For more complex things, there may be a logo. Ford made this car, HP made this laptop etc. But not everything has a logo. For example, as I write this, I have a box to my left. It's a little wooden box, but while it has a nice, ornate decoration on its lid, it has no logos, no branding of any kind. I have no clue who made this box. The information on the creator of this box is basically lost to me.
In a logical world, this is actually ok. I can afford to hypothesise who made this box, I can go looking for who it was, I can be content not knowing exactly who it was or how they did it, and I can question the sanity of anyone who accuses me of invoking the "man of the gaps" to explain the origins of this box.
In the same way, it would be perfectly ok to just be a generic Theist. You can look at the world and know there is a Creator without knowing exactly who that Creator is. Indeed, according to Scripture, this is how God operates to some degree. Looking at the early chapter of the book of Romans, we see that God has left us to conclude His existence based on His creation. We don't always do that, since we're sinners, so we tend to worship the creation instead, but we can, and do, understand that there is a Creator.
But that isn't where God leaves us. Through a process of gradual revelation, God has made Himself more known over the centuries. Primarily, He revealed Himself to, and through, the Jews. When they obeyed Him, He prospered them, even to the extent of flattening their enemies and making Himself known among them. Even to this day, the enemies of Israel, such as Hamas, confess "their God turns our missiles around mid air!" When they disobeyed Him, He carried out His promises against them, too.
But far from just prospering, or otherwise punishing Israel, God made Himself known among the nations through one particular Jew: Jesus Christ. You have undoubtedly heard of Him. Love Him or hate Him, He's always on the lips, minds, even hearts of men. He's not just some fairy tale. Rather, He is the most significant figure in all of human history.
He is also the most well-attested. Both friendly and hostile witness proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that not only did Jesus live, but He did, indeed, die, and rise again. I have opted not to go too deep into that in this article, partially for brevity's sake, partially because I have gone into it elsewhere and plan to do so more in the future. Suffice to say for now, a number of ancient sources confirm this, to the extent where the minority who assert Jesus never existed are regarded as extremely ignorant conspiracy theorists among scholars.
This brings us to the "minimum facts" argument. This argument exists in a number of forms, all of which attempt to "skip" the step of establishing a number of facts about Jesus' life based entirely on the fact they are accepted by most, if not all historians. When taking all of these facts together, the simplest explanation is that Jesus rose. Other theories are that Jesus had a twin brother, Jesus was an alien, and Allah swapped Jesus out for some other poor soul made to look like Jesus. Most laughable is Swoon Theory! But none of these theories adequately account for all the known data about Jesus.
With all the evidence available to us, which would take far more than an 8 minute article to present, much less expound upon and defend from hostile criticism, it is beyond obvious that not only is there a Creator, but we know His very name: Jesus of Nazareth.
Conveniently, Jesus means a lot more to us than just setting our world in motion. We're not just some ornament He made in some pottery club and put on a cosmic shelf, never to be remembered again. No, He specifically created us for a relationship with Him. By rebelling against Him, called "sin", we blew our first chance at that relationship. However, in His love, God desires restoration over wrath. Therefore, He sent Jesus to live as a man, never once sinning as we do, yet receiving the punishment for sin Himself. Therefore, all who will confess Him as Lord, and believe He rose from the dead, will come into a restored relationship with Him, forgiven for our sins, and receiving an eternal inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe this article has given more than sufficient information to lead reasonable minds to do so.