The Inadequacy of Paley's Argument from DesignWilliam Paley's teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of God. This argument succeeds in demonstrating that although existence was created by an aggregation of forces, defining these forces as conscious, rational, and ultimately God-like is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument is based on inductive reasoning, making the argument itself valid, but unfounded. The argument fails to apply its line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the content of the arguments lacks accurate comparisons. The argument relies on a clock metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe. The teleological argument attempts to demonstrate that a god designed the universe. Consider that a person encounters a watch in a field. The field is filled with various natural forms of vegetation. In contrast to the various natural constructions (such as stones, trees and bushes) the clock seems seemingly out of place. The person has no idea how it got there, although it is clear that the watch was created to tell the time. This scenario depends on eight tenants proposed by William Paley. The person has never seen, nor has any idea, how a watch is made. It is assumed that the watch is sometimes constructed incorrectly and functions poorly. The function of some parts of the watch is unknown. Of the many potential forms the watch could take, this is just one. A general principle or plan was used to build the clock. Finally, it's irrelevant if we know nothing about design on... half the paper... over millennia. At some point, a single force may have been responsible for the chain reaction that led to the formation of the eroded rock. However, this still fails to point towards a god or a conscious creator. After demonstrating faulty argumentation methods and frequent logical errors, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory and fails to resolve the burden of proof in showing how everything is deliberately designed. Even God's criterion, outlined by William Paley, is flawed and unattainable in the current state of reality. Even if the argument shows that the universe was formed by a fusion of forces, considering them conscious is a no-brainer. Ultimately, the teleological argument is an inadequate and dated explanation for the creation of the universe.