The Design Argument : The Theory 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”.

During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and

William Paley's argument for the existence of God is an important aspect of the Design argument, which argues that the universe is being directed towards an end purpose due to the a posteriori (subject to experience) evidence of an intelligent designer, who is God. This is because it is perhaps arguably the most famous version, and the theory which modern-day theories for the Design argument are built upon.

b, The idea that God exists and that he is the architect to serve the

The design argument is also referred to at the Teleological Argument stemmed from the Greek work ‘Telos’ meaning end or purpose. It is an ‘A posterior’ argument (from experience) based on our empirical senses and it is synthetic meaning that it is from observation. The argument is also inductive meaning there a number of possible conclusions. The main basis of the Teleological argument is based on a designer commonly known as ‘the classical God of theism’ (hereafter referred to as God)

As a teleological argument, Paley’s argument for the existence of God can be distilled as: (1) everything has a purpose, (2) creators define a thing’s purpose, so (3) therefore everything has a creator. After making his argument, Paley refutes eight common objections to his argument including the objections that not witnessing an object’s creation means it was not created and that imperfection of creation means that there was not a creator.

Take a moment to think about the world around you and all of its beauty. From the ever flowing Mississippi River, to the ledges of the mighty Grand Canyon, or even to the peak of Mt. Fuji there is an immense amount of things on this Earth that are so incredible it is hard to believe science and chance created these magnificent things. So what is the best explanation for these occurrences? I believe that these occurrences scream of an intelligent designer which also leads us to the existence of God. First I must explain what an argument for design is and then we will look at Paley’s Watchmaker Theory to give us better insight on this argument. Then I will point

The first strength of the design argument for the existence of God is that it argues that God is the best explanation for the apparent design in the universe. The only evidence needed is one to simply step outside, for it is clear to see aspects of the universe that are perfectly adapted to fulfil their function: such as the roots of trees. The argument is strong because all around us is evidence of purpose, order and suitability for human life. There is evidence of deliberate design all around us that are greater than the works of humanity can ever achieve, and this clearly points towards an intelligent, personal and infinitely greater designer. This designer is God.

To continue, there are various other denials of “the argument of design” that coincide with the different ways of organizing the argument. To begin, the dilemma surrounding the analogical argument is that an analogy is not a sound enough way to develop an argument, but also that the alleged resemblance is relatively distant and stretching to form a sound argument (Ratzsch, 2005). This is trying to say that the other design-like qualities of nature are in very little respects similar to mankind and thus, an entity may not necessarily have designed them. It is trying to say that using an analogy is not always clear due to the many required elements that could fall through the cracks when deciding whether or not an argument is worth backing. Despite the truth in this, it is not implausible to suggest that many of the characteristics of nature are rather similar to that of mankind, and that mankind is in fact just another designed aspect of nature. Both other,

Most religious zealots have no doubt about who created and the source of the origin of the universe. The same is true of the existence of the omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. Although God may not be seen or heard or touched, however; by faith, we believe of his majestic existence. His existence as God cannot be measured in terms of Gallup surveys or scientific proofs to show otherwise but “religious thinkers” according to James and Stuart Rachels have offered numerous thesis for the for the existence of God, starting with the argument from design, with its subtitles such as the wonders of nature; the “best-explanation arguments and the same-evidenced argument” (Rachels). In either of the cases, the conclusions drawn were similar in the sense that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

The design arguments for the existence of God center on the principle that an intelligent designer, in this case God, has crafted our world so that each item has a purpose and significant meaning. Additionally, the world is a complex and sometimes enigmatic system of elements which work together to sustain life in a way that some argue is unlikely to have occurred by pure chance alone. Therefore, some philosophers credit a divine being as the source of this order and purpose in the universe. Furthermore, William Paley offers a version of the design argument in which he employs simple analogy between a watchmaker and God to demonstrate God’s presence. However, critics of this approach to proving God’s existence object to this simplistic analogy of the origin of natural components in the world and instead argue that an evolutionary perspective better explains the existence of such objects and therefore, for the sake of simplicity, a divine being does not need to remain in the equation. As a result, both the objections of flaws in the format of Paley’s argument and the needless inclusion of God as a designer cannot successfully be refuted by supporters of Paley.

One argument for the existence of God that can be accused of ‘begging the question’ is the teleological, or design, argument.

In this paper the overall question will be “does God exist?” I will start this paper with my views before this class. Then, I will go into different theories, philosophers, and arguments that we have learned about during this class with that I will also include possible objections to these views. Finally, I will wrap this paper up by saying what my views are just from what we learned in from the class with no influence from my beginning views. Before this class I wouldn’t have really even thought about if God exists or not because I was raised believing that God is all seeing and all creating.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

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.