Theologically fragmented evidence

Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask a question for which I didn't really understand the answer. I asked here elsewhere on the site, but it seemed to me that the reference there wasn't really related to the topic, and the answers weren't entirely related to the question. I would be happy if the Rabbi could answer.
If we have before us something complex and orderly (like a clock) but ancient [for this matter, a voice came out of the sky and revealed this to us], is it reasonable to claim that it was refined by a designer?
The advantage of claiming that there is a designer is that this claim has great explanatory power, so it explains to us clearly why the unique phenomenon before us exists.
The disadvantage of this argument is that we are, to a certain extent, taking the complexity argument one step back, since the other complex thing (God, for that matter) also needs an explanation – after all, it is a unique entity that we could think of another reality to exist in, and so on. In any case, in order to stop the chain, why don't we stop the clock?
on. My assumption here is that even an entity that is its own cause can theoretically be thought to exist in another way. Can there be an entity that cannot be thought to exist in another way? What is the status of that entity called? Just the "necessity of reality"?! Or is there an intermediate reality that, insofar as the entity exists, can only be so?
Is it appropriate to ask about such an entity the physio-theological evidence? If not, then we are dealing with an entity that breaks an excellent regression. Isn't that so?
I would be very happy if the Rabbi could address the question. (And certainly the dear visitors here on the site 🙂 )