I disagree with Paley because much of the reasoning 's he gives to his arguments are either false or can easily be refuted. I also disagree with Paley because even though he does follow through to his conclusion, the premises of illogically and indirectly saying "because I say so", when he cannot find a logical answer, is not a valid argument. Much of Paley 's argument to prove the existence of a creator of the universe, or God, ignores many counter-arguments. When Paley begins to explain there being a purpose and function of the watch, which is clearly to tell time, he is also not able to identify as to what the exact purpose and function of the universe is. Paley leaves this issue with the renowned “because I said so”, leaving readers to feel as though they have no choice but to agree.
There are many of his concepts that are accepted as a truth, but cannot be absolutely proven. Nothing can be proven one hundred percent. They are simply based on a whole bunch of concepts that we know to be true. This could be said in regards
Hume aims to challenge the structure of the cosmological argument and questions the validity of the assumption that things that exist need causes or reasons for their existence. Hume says that just because each of the elements of the ‘chain’ has a cause, it doesn’t follow that the chain itself needs an initial cause. Furthermore, Hume suggested that we have no experience of universes being made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. There is a logical jump which the argument fails to recognise. It is one thing to talk about causes that operate within the system of the universe, but it is an entirely different matter to theorise about whether the universe as a whole is caused.
This, he says is more important than knowing the facts about God or performing rituals. This is one reason Kierkegaard supports the knight of infinite resignation over that of faith. The knight of faith is also seen as something comfortable but Kierkegaard doesn’t think we should feel so comfortable. The knight of faith seems to jump into the infinite and come back and seems to have no faith, which Kierkegaard is uneasy with. The knight of faith wants the material world to be the way he wants it and remains focused on the fact that he believes in God but is getting it all back.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
How do we find comfort and security in the midst of turmoil? Do we lean on God or rely on ourselves? How do we find peace when surrounded by evil? All very valid and complex questions that, to date are still being debated. God Over Atheism
Descartes’ first argument for the existence of God In meditations of the first philosophy, Descartes reflects that he is often deceived by his senses. He therefore decides to discard all his pre-conceived notions and start from scratch to find out things that he is absolutely certain about. Descartes begins by showing that he is certain about only one thing, which is that he exists as a thinking thing. The fact that he can doubt his own existence goes on to show that he exists and that he is a thinking thing capable of doubting, imagining, willing etc.
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
with the most logical study of these inductive methods. The question whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions, is known as the problem of induction. The problem of induction may also be organized as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the suggestions and intellectual systems of the pragmatic sciences. In the eyes of the people of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of vast significance for scientific ways " this principle " says Reichenbach, " determines the truth of scientific theories. To remove it from science would mean absolutely nothing lower than to deny science of the will to decide the truth or falsity of its theories " .