Essay on Why the Design Argument Fails

1091 Words5 Pages
Why the Design Argument Fails The Design Argument does fail due to its weaknesses, it is lacking in factual and substantial evidence to prove its theories. It puts forward a lot of ideas and claims however they are not justified well enough; the only true fact is that you have to believe them. I feel it is correct to claim that it fails due to the amount of criticising evidence against the theories for the existence of God. The main philosopher to criticise and object to the Teleogical Argument was David Hume. He looked at every point towards the existence towards a creator and designer and then thought logically about the condemnation and came up with rebuttals. He realised that…show more content…
He then compares a watch against a floating vegetable. “A clock to a large organic mass is not possible to compare. It would be better to compare it to an immense floating object.” He is stating how absurd it is that a small simple item could be linked to such a powerful designer. You cannot link a watch towards something, which is a far more superior, and multitasking being. Like many of these assumptions they are lacking concrete evidence to prove it, it is just a theory and therefore weakens the argument towards the existence of a creator. Another protestation, which Hume makes, is the difference between the world at present and the world at birth. He asks how we can link what was then from what we see now, the time difference is too great and too big of an assumption. When we link the dinosaurs and try to analysis their life and habits we can only learn from what we have. Then we tend to assume what time period they lived and who hunted whom. Once again there is no real evidence to prove where or when they existed and this is just like the creator theories. We assume and try to link things together from what we have without looking at all the evidence and waiting for 100% accurate facts. So we just predict and say it is the way forward. However this is incorrect and therefore false to state this. Yet many Philopshers tend to say that it is
Open Document