“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?

Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.”

A depiction of William Paley's 1802 "watch analogy", the gist of which is that if you were walking along a heath and came across a stone and a watch, and asked yourself how they came to be, you would say the stone came to be their by natural forces, but the watch had an artificer (aka watchmaker) who designed the watch with parts that produce motion for a purpose; the watch is analogous to a human, who must have been designed similarly, and that "designer" must be god.

“Bangs have bangers, information has an informer, and rigged dice have riggers.”

— J.P. Moreland (2004), a Paley's watch analogy reformulated to big bang theory, information in DNA, and the fine tuning argument [3]