The reason the argument fails is because Paley emphasizes giving things a single purpose. If things had more purpose from Paley's point of view then it would be much harder to dismiss the argument. This topic also shows the god of the 3-point rule. Paley demonstrated in this argument that God is all good, omnipotent, and omniscient. The topic also makes a good argument for how certain things must have intelligent design in order for them to be created. This is where I believe it thrives the most. If we were to consider another argument like The Ontological Argument it states that the greatest thing we can conceive exists in the mind, but it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind, but if nothing greater than God can be conceived in the mind then God must exist in reality. This argument can easily be destroyed if someone simply believes that God is not the greatest thing one can conceive of. He also does not prove the existence of God in the whole world physically, but with the mind. Where Paley's argument shows God through the “creations” he created and explaining what God is like