Gallup's Argument Analysis

In his third argument about arguing from mind to design, he states that using the mind as a representation is only a small part of universe (Paley, 1802, 197). For example, a watch must have had a watchmaker because such a complex idea and mechanism could not have just come from nature. A creator with prior knowledge of the watch must have created it. Therefore, the universe must have had a creator. This creator was God.

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we are introduced to three characters that serve the purpose to debate God and his nature, more specifically, what can mankind infer about God and his nature. The three characters; Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes all engage in a debate concerning this question and they all serve the purpose of supporting their views on the subject. It is the “argument from design” put forth by Cleanthes that is the focal point of the discussion, and it is Demea and Philo who attempt to discredit it.

This essay will not review all of the objections as this would result in overlap and repetition. The Argument from Design argues that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer, God and no further evidence is required to prove their existence. It compares Items in nature

Paley’s made his argument using an analogy to prove the existence of god, using a watchmaker analogy and to image if we found a watch on the ground and could it have been possible for the watch to simply appear randomly, spontaneously on its own. Paley was arguing that the teleology demonstrated by a watch would conclude that it was designed by an intelligent creator with a particular end in mind. While Aquinas has a design argument of his own ,the Teleological argument focuses on the condition that allows for life in the universe to only occur when certain fundamental physical constants are within a very narrow range if one of many fundamental constant are off slightly, then the universe would be unfit for the development of matter and life. Since these things are so finely tuned it appears an intelligent designer may have been involved in making sure these things happened so life could occur that designer Aquinas believes to be

Ultimately, Paley’s argument uses an inductive argument to suggest that all things with properties of intelligence and complexity must have an intelligent designer who designs them for a specific purpose.

William Paley argues the existence of God by utilizing a watch analogy. Whereas, he observes the watch to create a visual when explaining the complexity of the birth of humanity and Earth. Therefore, in order for the Earth to be so complex in its maturity the creator had to be greater than the Earth. Paley begins his argument by presenting a scenario that if some individual walks upon a stone that is resting on the ground they would cursorily assume that the stone had been there since the beginning of time. Conversely, one could not assume that a watch was just recently placed on the ground. Reason being that the individual is likely to examine the interior areas of the watch. If the watch had any minor deficiencies it would lose its ability

There are more Americans who consider abortion morally wrong than those who say it is morally acceptable, according to a new Gallup poll.

William Paley’s version of the design argument draws a general conclusion out of a simple situation. Given the instance of the watch, where a watch is found on the beach and its origin couldn’t simply be that it was randomly created out of nowhere – because the watch surpasses the works of nature, it must have had a creator and/or designer. Paley’s parallel this reason between the watch and nature. He goes on explaining that if one stops to think how complex nature is, then it is obvious that nature must have had a creator as well.

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume challenges the existence of God by presenting three different arguments from the perspectives of three philosophers. First is that of the fideist, Demea, who presents the weakest argument. The reader is quickly aware that this perspective is the least believable according to Hume. Although Hume quickly dismisses the idea of faith as a basis for the existence of God, he uses faith as a wedge in the attempt to break apart the argument of for intelligent design presented by the second character Cleanthes. A majority of the Dialogues is dedicated to this cause, as the strongest argument is from the perspective of intelligent design. The third character, Philo, is the skeptic wielding the pickaxe, and believed to be the voice of Hume, has the most difficult time dismantling this concept. By the end of the dialogue, it is unclear as to the true position that Hume is taking concerning natural theology. It is my understanding that Hume would accept the existence of God through the perspective of natural theology, if it were not deterred by the misuse of a Deity through organized religion as a means to control the masses. Because of this misuse, it is understandable why Hume remained a skeptic (at least publically) for the duration of his life (Craig 486-512).

First, there is a set of charts called the Gallup poll. These charts gave the opinions of many people and their thoughts on J.F.K’s actions and President L.B.J’s actions. They showed that many people liked the speed Lyndon was going to getting the bill signed. Many people liked his speed more than the ones who liked J.F.K’s speed The pie graphs also say that over half the people in the United States agreed with what he was doing. Getting half of the people to agree with you as a president is a substantial deal, because back then and now in modern day it is great if you get 40 percent of the people to agree with you. These charts prove that signing the bill would help him get elected when the next election came along. This also proves that

In the past hundred years, a great debate has shaken the foundation religious and scientific beliefs of society. Philosophers have been arguing about such a debate for hundreds of years, but there does not seem to be any consensus on whether on the existence of god and the universe. The ancient world never battled over such questions, rather they had accepted the fact that the natural world was created by some being. However, as society made major advancements, the question about god 's existence and his creation arose causing many debates and arguments to come about. The design arguments are a popular example of such debates, which is very prevalent amongst philosophers and society at large. “Simply put, the design argument, or the argument from design, states that the order and purpose manifest in the works of nature indicate that they were designed by an intelligent being” (Velasquez 251). The greatest proponent of the design argument was philosopher William Paley, who formulated the argument. As a student of philosophy and avid proponent of god 's existence, I support the design argument and philosopher William Paley. I would like to argue against the beliefs of atheism and agnosticism while supporting the design argument as a means of god 's existence. I believe that god is the creator of that which surrounds us and science and nature is a means to prove the existence of god, not rebuttal it. Also I will support the design argument with the

The argument from design or the teleological argument points to the existence of order and direction in nature to a kind of purpose. The argument essentially proves the existence of God. A designer must exist because the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their complexity. Design-type arguments are unproblematic when based upon things nature plainly could not or would not produce, like human artifacts. If designs entail a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. An intelligent designer is an entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the development of life. Essentially, the claim being made is that certain aspects of the universe are too perfectly

Many philosophers have provided their arguments for the existence of God. Their arguments are a priori or a posteriori. A posteriori is based on experience of how the world is. In which the Cosmological view of William L. Rowe comes from. This paper will show how Rowe took the cosmological argument and its principle of sufficient reason and failed to make it an established argument of the existence of God.

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

Cleanthes’ argument from design in ‘Dialogues concerning Natural Religion’ is trying to prove that there is a deity which exists and which is similar to humans in our mind and intelligence. This argument from design can be dated back to Plato and later, Aquinas in the ‘Summa Theologica’. Cleanthes However, Cleanthes’ argument does not fully prove that the deity is a theological Christian God as it does not prove his omniscience and his omnipotent nature shown in biblical texts. The infinite nature of God is also unstable as it is not fully proven and therefore can easily be criticised. The argument is therefore providing a necessary but not sufficient condition for a theological God.