Essay about The Inadequacy of Paley's Argument from Design

The third premise is crucial. Proponents of the design argument for rationality of belief in God argue that—

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

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,

Argument from Design In the Argument from Design article by William Paley, he begins the argument by describing the mechanisms of a watch. These parts all combine in a certain way to make the watch work, or even exist. If these parts were not combined in the exact order, the watch would not do anything profound. Paley further describes how an observer could conceive the watch in the mind.

This is the second argument about God’s existence. Perhaps the most popular variant owed to this this argument is William Paley’s argument concerning the watch. Essentially, this argument states that after observing a watch, together with its intricate parts, which function together as a unit in an accurate manner to keep time, anybody must realize that such piece of machinery has its creator, as it is too complicated to have easily come into presence through other means, like evolution (Ratzsch, 2005). The following is a skeleton of this argument:

William Paley argues the existence of God by utilizing a watch analogy. Whereas, he observes the watch to create a visual when explaining the complexity of the birth of humanity and Earth. Therefore, in order for the Earth to be so complex in its maturity the creator had to be greater than the Earth. Paley begins his argument by presenting a scenario that if some individual walks upon a stone that is resting on the ground they would cursorily assume that the stone had been there since the beginning of time. Conversely, one could not assume that a watch was just recently placed on the ground. Reason being that the individual is likely to examine the interior areas of the watch. If the watch had any minor deficiencies it would lose its ability

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 Watchmaker Argument” by William Paley has been of great controversy because of its analogy between the creation of a watch and the creation of the universe. Paley’s argument consists of the idea of there being a creator for everything, he uses the complicated composition of a watch as to prove that there has to be a watchmaker and therefore the complicated composition of the universe serves as to prove that there is in fact a Universe creator (God). Although Paley’s argument is strong and valid, David Hume’s opposing argument is more valid due to the premises he uses. Hume argues that it is impossible to compare something created by the human mind to something as complex as the universe simply because there is a lot about the creation of the universe that is unknown, unlike the creation of a house (or watch).

My argument and ideas are based on parts of Thomas Aquinas and William Paley’s arguments on the existence of God. As a Christian, at some point in time you wonder or start to question religion. Does God exist? I feel as though this is a natural question people ask through their personal spiritual journeys. The existence of God is provided by the premises of a first mover, a first causer, the proof of possibility and necessity, and God being the designer of the universe, therefore God exists. The natural world must have had a maker. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” I wonder if God made the universe, who made God? God is the transcendent personal cause of the universe, exists independently, there is no beginning. Therefore, nothing caused God.

William Paley believes in the existence of God and that through his watchmaker analogy in “Natural Theology” he can prove that there is an Intelligent Designer. David Hume addresses William Paley’s argument in “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” and argues Paley’s analogy is weak since Hume believes we cannot analogize earthly things from things we cannot understand. In this paper, I will address these teleological arguments.

The analogy just doesn’t work. Second, some say that the theories of the big bang and evolution better explain the complexity in the universe. Third, some say that even if the teleological argument is true, it does not prove the existence of the Christian 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.

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

I my personal opinion I somewhat support the argument but I am not a philosopher so my explanations are limited. I like any other human often ponder on the existence in which we are. Who Created us and what created it. The five questions Kalama asks hit my assessment square on the noes. The only explanation is God . If the Cosmos where the start of time and time doesn’t exist whit out the start of the Cosmos What sound explanation explains the creation of what created the cosmos. The only explanation I can come up With is an omnificent being, a.k.a. God. Only a contingent being has such an explanation. Nothing else can personally suffice for me. If we look at things from a scientific standpoint everything comes from a chemical reaction. This universe was started from the big bang correct. A bunch of gases combined inside a vacuum of darkness and caused a reaction in which caused the creation of our universe. But what caused those gases. What started that. What created the darkness? What created the gases. There can only be two explanations. We are just a product of random coincidence or we are the end result of a strategic blueprint laid out by some magnificent, that has always been and will be. Of the two I can only support the idea of god. Things seem to perfectly laid out to just be a product of accidents.

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their