Sir Thomas Aquinas And William Paley 's Argument On The Existence Of God

William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.

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

The traditional God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is known to be as an “Omni-God” possessing particular divine attributes such as omniscient, which means he knows everything he is also omnipotent, or all powerful. God has also been said to be also he is omnipresence which means he exists in all places and present everywhere, however there are many philosophical arguments on whether if any of that is actually true or if there is a God at all. This paper argues that it is not possible to know whether the traditional God exists or not. While there have been philosophers such as Aquinas, Anselm, Paley and Kierkegaard who are for god and present strong argument, likewise philosopher like Nietzsche and arguments like the problem of evil both make valid point on why God isn’t real.

In his discussion of the argument from design, which he links with teleological principles, the author refers to the concept of design in a way that alludes to the conviction that there are certain divine manifestations in the world that are so perfect that they must revolve around a grand architect who conceived them to be that way. Therefore, he says that proving such an argument requires "indisputable examples of design or purpose" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). However, this standard of indisputability that McCloskey is holding this argument to,

Although this type of argument is practical at predicting patterns of re-occurring events, they are never legitimately sound. Consider the sunrise. It has risen every day for thousands of years on end. Therefore, it will rise tomorrow. Despite the odds of this happening being very high, there is not a one hundred percent chance that it will. Furthermore, consider the existence of the universe itself. Although the odds of life being created by a random amalgamation of forces are very low, the correct combination for life to exist only has to occur once. From that point forward, evolution and a reaction to external stimuli allows life to change naturally.

In the Theological Argument William Paley is trying to prove that god exists. He uses the analogy of creation and design. He believes that because a watch has a maker/creator so does the universe. Paley then goes into depth of how complicated, precise and intelligent a human has to be in order to create the watch. He then explains all the steps and components it takes in order for the watch to be able to function. By doing so he is showing how precise the creator had to be in order for the watch to work and he uses this analogy for the universe. For instance, having the sun exactly where it is at the perfect distance in order to support human life on Earth. As the argument continues Paley starts to give reasons as to why people might consider

Some, such as Paley, aimed to defend this idea using teleological arguments. Such arguments insist on the existence of God by “attempting to identify features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God’s existence as the best explanation for these features.” Paley compares a watch to living organisms by analogizing: “Watches are complex and good at doing their job (i.e. keeping time). Therefore, it is a result of intelligent design. Living organisms are complex and good at doing their job (i.e. surviving and reproducing). Therefore, they are a result of intelligent design.” Paley believes that if a watchmaker made a watch, then an intelligent designer made other elaborate things, such as the eye or flowers. A problem with this reasoning is that analogies are comparisons, not evidence. Comparing two not identical, but similar things does not make their conclusions equivalent; if one conclusion is true for one argument, it is not guaranteed to be true for the other. In this situation, concluding that a watch has an intelligent designer does not validate the notion that living organisms do as well. In rebuttal, theists attempt to thwart this with the theory of irreducible complexity, or the belief that some traits are too complex to have been produced by evolution’s slow step-by-step process. Similar to the watch, theists believe life is too complex to have been affected by evolution, and the best explanation for living organisms is that they are a result of intelligent

The two main arguments used in support of Intelligent Design are the arguments from improbability and irreducible complexity. Scientists and philosophers have always been staggered at the sheer multitude of living organisms on Earth. When creationists see this diversity and complexity of life on our planet instead of marvelling at the millions of years it took for an organism to reach the stage it is in, they see the marvellous work of the designer who made all this come to pass. It is of course, not entirely illogical to assume there is a creator. ‘The Watchmaker argument’ is a famous example which is used to justify the existence of a creator.

There is no objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of nature’s creator. If we were to think the design argument was reasonable, then one must also take under consideration the amount of ‘creators’ are required

order. The divine order and harmony of the universe further support Aquinas’s argument. The intelligent designer is the final cause of all things. Psalm 19:3-4 makes a valid point as well. It states, “There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun.”[18] These two verses also discredits Hume’s argument by saying the universe has no creative attributes of an intelligent designer. Though, the universe cannot speak with a voice, they speak without using words. God’s power is revealed and proclaimed through heavens presentence. Not only is God’s attributes revealed through the universe, the heavens

How in such a scientific and empirical world could such a proponent for an architect God, namely Tomas Aquinas, still hold credence in the realm of metaphysics today. If his only contribution to the field is the addition of a creator God to the thoughts of Aristotle, then there is not true medieval mind that advances philosophical thought until the humanist revolution of the renaissance, leaving a void in time between classical thought and modern thought, ultimately this void leads to Aquinas even if contemporary minds disagree with his conclusion. Aristotle himself concludes there must be a “eternal, unmoved substance…without parts and indivisible” (The Metaphysics, pg. 375) but he cannot formulate a proof of this being’s existence through

Aquinas says we experience causality Nothing is the cause of itself causes are other than their effects. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes. If there were an infinite regress, the effects we experience here & now would not exist. Therefore, there must be some first cause and this we call "God." There is also the law of argument by design, we naturally work towards a goal, we also lack the knowing of the outcome, but we reach our goal by being pointed in the direction, therefore there is an intelligent being pointing us in the direction and that would be proof of “God”.

Firstly, we shall focus on the Design (or to use its philosophically technical term, the teleological argument). There are numerous variants of the Design argument, however we shall be focusing on Paley’s version (reference 1) of this theory. Paley’s version of the Design argument is based upon the idea that by looking around at certain features of the world (for example an inanimate object like a rock or say a living creature like dolphin or a person like myself) and theorising that they are too complex and intricate to randomly just manifest. They must have been created by a higher, more intelligent power and thus, if this is accepted as being so, then this proves beyond doubt that God exists.

If St Thomas Aquinas represents an essential reference in the Christian world for the relationship between faith and reason, he was not the first to open this theological debate. It has gained momentum thanks to the Arabs, although it has existed since the beginning of Christianity. Indeed, in the twelfth century two other monotheistic philosophers, Avérroès and Maimonide, respectively Muslim and Jew had produced work on the relationship between the two concepts. Let us say that the XIIIth century was the one of the improvement of the thoughts present during

Man loves God. It is as natural a love to Man as any other is. For millennia the notion of divinity has ruled the minds of peoples the world over, its power to foster social cohesion and social conflict at the heart of its aversion to senescence. However, can such a consequential notion have as its foundation a logical proof? Arguments in the affirmative abound. Let us examine one in particular, that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Five Ways. As we do this, we will consider Søren Kierkegaard’s claim that any logical proof of God’s existence assumes God already exists, that God is necessary for reality to exist (Swenson). Let us establish the logical proof offered by Aquinas and then determine whether we could reach the same conclusions assuming God does not exist, and employ Occam’s razor.