Marshall I. Cotta
May 8, 2017
PHIL-110
Crawley
Paley Perplexed William Paley, an English Clergyman and philosopher, has had us scratching our heads for centuries as we ponder the connection between the artificial and natural world. He suggested that if we were walking along a path and hit our foot against a stone, we would assume that the stone had been there forever because it was something “natural”. However, suppose for a second, that the stone was replaced with a watch. This is where the cogs start turning for philosophers. When we replace the stone with a watch, we are comparing something natural to something artificial. No one would question that the watch was made by a watchmaker. Therefore, according to Paley, logically, if
…show more content…
And, since two of the three criteria are met, we can then assume that there is a creator. We live in a world uniquely equipped to support mankind. There is only one explanation for this and that is that the world was designed by an intelligent creator. This omni-god must have had humans in mind when he created the world. (Holt) And, since everything we need is here on earth, it could not possibly be here by chance. There was no random selection or chance that just happened to serve all of our needs. Paley explains that it is perfectly logical to make the leap from watchmaker to omni-God. With concepts so complex as those found in nature, there is no doubt that they required a creator. There is no need to question anything that Paley asserts in his analogy between the watch and the world.
Suppose there is an omni-god, an all powerful, all knowing super-being. This being would be perfect in its own right. Therefore, if this being was omnipotent and perfect, would it not make sense that everything it creates is perfect as well? Why would this being make anything less than perfect? Our perfect world would be filled with perfect people living perfect lives in perfect harmony with perfect understanding. Because, why would we worship or trust in a less than omnipotent God? We see no limits to God’s
His second argument for design he makes a comparison between machines and humans saying that both are equally complex and it was built with a purpose in mind. If changes are made to the watch such as taking away an internal component that makes it runs, or the minute or hour hand, its purpose would suddenly change and it would no longer be a watch.
William Paley uses the invention of a watch as an analogy to the invention of the universe. He argues that if we observe the very complicated and detailed design of the universe we can see that there was in fact a maker. Paley argues that the complicated structure of a watch is enough prove that there was a watch maker just like the complicated structure of the universe is prove enough to show that there is universe maker. He also shows that the
considered a perfect being unlike humans or any other world subject. The fact that he is perfect
Firstly, Paley concentrates in the process leading to the creation of the watch. The process for creating a watch is very systematic and involves knowledge of mechanical engineering, a trade known to few men. Yet, it is not necessary to know the inner workings of the watch to use it on a daily basis: it is only necessary to understand the relationship between the position of the watch's hands to the sunrise and sunset of day. Paley concludes that even though he could not create a watch, some supreme being could create such watch. In other words, anything that shows evidence of creation has a creator and such creator exists or has existed at one point in time.
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.
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
1. The cosmos as we know it demands that there be an intelligent designer behind it.
If the watch could somehow reproduce, Paley still would not question that the watch still had originated from some intelligent designer. Like the watch, he thinks the universe also works for a purpose. Paley proscribes design as foresight, which is connected with purpose, however, the purpose is not the same as the function. It is said to be
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a
If God were omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good, then the world would not contain evil.
William Paley has a similar logical gap in his “Argument from Design,” but he attempts to address this issue in “Chapter V.” Previously in this argument, Paley attests that the nature of humans and their parts implies a designer. From the discussion in class, Paley’s argument can be organized as follows:
In this paper I will contrast the ways that Blaise Pascal and Saint Anselm of Canterbury attempted to convince people to believe in God. Before getting into the two arguments I should first clarify a few key terms. Firstly, the difference between ordinary and religious beliefs. An ordinary belief is exactly what it sounds like, it’s a typical belief based on adequate evidence. An example would be “I believe the sky is blue because I’ve observed it as blue countless times”. Religious beliefs on the other hand, are not based on reasoning, but instead “Sola Fide”, or faith alone suffices, meaning that these beliefs are based only on trust that the proposition is true. A basic example of a religious belief would be “God exists” despite a lack of evidence for the claim. The major conflict between the two different types of beliefs is that in ordinary belief its considered shame worthy to belief something without have reasons to support it while belief without evidence is the core of religious belief. Another key term that must be understood to understand the arguments is “faith seeking understanding”. This idea was championed by Anselm and is crucial to understanding his argument. In short, he means that if someone begins with just faith in God then through that God will help them attain understanding.
An omni-generic attribute, refers to that which holds of any substance but does not contribute to its essence, such as existence, duration, or number. According to Descartes, to not possess this kind of attribute is a kind of privation or lack of the attribute itself. For example, if a ball is not red it lacks the color red. Therefore, if it is essential that God is both perfect and infinite then non-existence would imply that a perfect being suffers some kind of privation. Clearly this is preposterous, for if a perfect being were to lack anything it would essentially cease to be perfect. Ergo, God exists by virtue of His perfection.
As for Paley’s theory he believes that nature must have a designer and that the designer is God, he believed we all have a purpose and everything that we do has purpose. Paley says that with our abilities to create artifacts that resemble the universe then there has to be a creator of the universe and everything that is in it. Either nature or some of its parts have design like properties they show evidence of being
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.