Teleological Argument

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”.

The argument for the existence of God has been a debate for many centuries. God, in terms of philosophy, must be a supernatural being that: is all-knowing, is all-powerful, and is all-good. Theists believe God exists based on these terms; atheists on the other hand don’t believe in God. Atheists believe that if there is evil present in the universe, then there is no possible way God can exist if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Evil is defined in three different categories: human evil (evil we humans cause), natural evil (not in our control, of the Earth), and sufferings of the heart (not necessarily human/natural evil). The argument for the problem of evil is that God doesn’t exist because evil exists. In

1. Because of man’s ignorance and curiosity, arguments for the existence of God have been made over the years. Basically, these arguments are divided into two large groups i.e. logical and metaphysical. Actually, these arguments seek to prove that the existence of a being or having faith with at least one attribute that only God could have is logically necessary.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

In this essay, I am going to argue that God exists. The three main concepts that I’m going to talk about which which are the problem of evil, the fine tuning argument and the moral argument. According to theism, God is: “that being which no greater is possible, and he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.”. By having a God who only desires good, and us living in a world where evil exists, it is logically impossible and that is what created the problem of evil. There are two sides of the problem of evil which are the logical and evidential argument. The logical side states that:

To begin, Richard Swinburne starts his paper by defining the two teleological arguments: spatial orders and temporal orders, which he refers to as regularities of co-presence and regularities of succession, respectively. He gives insight as to how eighteenth century philosophers were drawn to regularities of co-presence. They argued by first acknowledging plants and animals have come about from generations of reproduction. But since the universe doesn’t have an infinite past, some higher power must have been the one to create these animals and plants. The initial argument made was reconstructed to dispel any challengers in biology, such as Darwin. The argument was then reconstructed to say the laws of nature make nature itself is a “machine-making machine”. Its parts create more complex parts by adapting to changes in the environment. Swinburne states this reconstruction is better than what it was in its former state, though it isn’t strong, which I agree with. The scarcity of complex organisms throughout our universe do not serve as enough evidence to make the statement that a creator of nature created nature with the idea in mind that nature would produce machine-making machines. As far as we know, Earth is the only planet with significant signs of

The teleological argument is based around the idea that the universe in some way demands the existence of an intelligent being that designed the universe to

The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

1. Introduction In contemporary philosophy, it is generally agreed that the existence of God cannot be proven definitively. The debates regarding the existence of a God are foundationally based on logic. William James and Blaise Pascal have provided interesting arguments regarding the logical reasons one should and/or could believe in God.

The existence of God has been in question and argued amongst people for who knows how long. It has troubled mankind for thousands of years. Many philosophers have tried their best to prove that there may or may not be a God. Rene Descartes and Saint Anselm are two philosophers that each had their own proofs for the existence of God. I will be looking at the similarities, differences, and the persuasion of their proofs.

The debate was interesting, by having team discuss and organize their points of view for one side of an argument they are able to discover new information and counterpart argument engage intensify more about the topic but it was a short period of time could not do well but tried it. Affcourse debate is important to enhance critical thinking and presentation skills. Using debate in the classroom will help students to grasp essential critical thinking. The topic was good it is very familiar and important, we should learn strategies of debate it improves more knowledge.

Many atheists think positing God as the cause of the universe is a bad idea. This is due to the inevitable question: Who created God? In many atheists' minds, using God as the cause of the universe just adds more problems.I am a devout skeptic. Still, I think this a bad line of reasoning. I do not think one has to research every theological argument from early Christendom onwards, but I think understanding basic concepts of the western monotheistic deity is somewhat necessary. This is especially true if one is arguing with any believer who has some level of sophistication about their religious beliefs.

Every philosophical idea, when rooting out its origins and what ideas it was built upon, will come down to determining whether or not God exists. Free-will vs determinism, creationism vs evolution, the origins of morality, the origin of the universe, these are all common arguments that at the core is an argument for God’s existence. And, each one is a defining principle in human reasoning. Heck, even the quarrel over climate change boils down to the existence of God. Because, if there is a God, he is responsible for the well-being of Earth and what humans do will not largely impact the planet; and if there is no God, then humans are responsible for our blue pearl floating in the vast nothingness of the universe. Whether or not he exists is irrelevant to these arguments, because each one objective views come from the basis of God’s existence or nonexistence. If God does indeed exist, it would not change any of the atheist’s arguments and it could not change them unless God himself showed his existence to them. And if God does not exist, the theists arguments wouldn’t change unless God was

Proof Of The Exsistence of God Either God exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. Any attempt to remain neutral in relation to God's existence is automatically synonymous with unbelief. The question for God's existence is really important. Does God exist? Theology, cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments are all have ways to prove the existence of God. With all of these great arguments how can one deny that there is a God. There is a God and with these reasons I will prove that.

The question of God's existence has been debated in philosophy to great lengths. E.K. Daniel has listed all common philosophical arguments for the existence of God in his essay "A Defense of Theism", consisting of The Ontological Argument, The First-Cause Argument, The Argument of Contingency, The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, and The Natural Law Argument (p. 260). These arguments are familiar to any basic student of philosophy, along with the critiques that have been raised by philosophers such as Ernest Nagel in his essay "The Case for Atheism" (p. 274-283). These arguments have almost reached a virtual impasse, since there seems to be as much rational proof against the existence of God as there is fervor to believe in God. K.D. Ellis states this by saying "They may offer some support for the plausibility of the belief in a god, but they are not sufficiently strong enough to compel our assent to the conclusion that a god exists" (p. 297). This difference of perspective results in theism, atheism and agnosticism.