Who made the world we live in? This question has been debated for thousand of years and it is been the main fuel in many philosophers work. The Teleological Argument for God's Existence also known as the argument from design; it is the argument that our world and the universe surrounding it are complex that it was not created by accident, it was however designed by a intelligent designer. In 1802, William Paley created his analogical version of the teleological argument using an analogy of a watch. According to Ernest Nagel, Teleological argument is based on empirical evidence. In this essay, from what I have read about the Teleological Argument for God’s existence I will explain the Teleological Argument and show that the world is not like …show more content…
Paley analogy states “Imagine you live on a desolate desert island and one day you come across a watch, by looking at it and examining, the intricate and complicated mechanisms you would conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer.” There is some value to his analogy, therefore what Paley is saying is that if we were to find a watch we haven’t seen before, we would be able logically conclude by what we have seen on the watch, it was therefore made by an intelligent designer. Also it concludes the natural world manifests the same interrelation of its parts as a watch. So, we can conclude that an intelligent designer makes the natural world and that designer is God. In addition, the teleological argument displays the flaws in the infamous theory of …show more content…
If the designer is intelligent, why does our universe have so much chaos such as the destructive meteor volcanoes, and earthquakes? Paley believes the following possible objections are incompetent to challenge his analogical argument. Paley’s response to my main argument would be, just because we don't know who the designer might be, it doesn't mean there is not a creator. We never knew the designer capable of making the universe or we do not know how the work was accomplished. I would say if the parts of the universe do not work perfectly; then the designer is neither intelligent nor evident. However, Paley’s response will be; it is not necessary to show that something is perfect in order to show that there is a design present. I will also state we have no clue who the artist capable of making the universe and we do not know how the work was accomplished, Paley's response; would be because we don't know who the designer might be, it is it not fair to simply rule out that there is not one. Some parts of the universe seem to have no task and some areas were not created probably. In my opinion, Paley's will respond by saying, just because we do not know the task of those parts does not indicate that there is no function. The universe is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. One knows nothing at all about the foundation of the universe. Paley’s response; Therefore, by seeing the parts of the
The conclusion, thus, is that Nature was created by intelligent design. This argument is the centerpiece of Paley’s “Argument from Design”, as he spends the previous two sections deliberately lining the specifics of a watch, the clear order a watch follows, and that there must be a creator for a watch. In this section, he puts forward an analogy that nature is like a watch in that both have specific orders and contrivances which thus mean that both were created by an intelligent
Paley simply responds to this by saying that something doesn’t have to perfect to show that there was a designer. Another problem with this argument is that things in a watch (or a universe) contain different parts that look like they have no function, so these parts are somewhat proof that he universe wasn’t designed. Paley replies to this by saying that just because we do not know the function of something it doesn’t mean that it has no function, Paley looks at different parts of the watch (or universe) and from this he decides that it must have been
Hambourger’s argument from design argues for the existence of god based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the world/universe. To further elaborate on the concepts he uses, Hambourger uses three main concepts; determinism, chance, and mere hap. Hambourger’s argument from design claims that though many things occur by chance, there are some things which we cannot simply accept to have happened by chance, and must therefore have some common explanation in the causal chain of events connecting the two events. For instance the universe is created by many states of affairs coming together. If some slight changes had occurred, the end result could have been vastly different than it currently is.
I Thesis The Teleological Argument presented by William Paley is not a good nor a sound argument due to Paley’s use of the word ‘generally’ in premise three as well as his failure to establish a God, in all aspects of the word, existence. I now will explain each premise of the Teleological Argument and all of its premise’s in Section II, then in Section III explain why I believe this argument fails and is unsound. II
After reading The Teleological Argument, William Paley’s conclusion is straightforward and can be stated in just two words: God exists. His entire argument is based on a watch and is used as a means to prove God’s existence. As simple as a watch may seem, Paley describes its complexity and claims that a higher power had to have created its intelligent design. But how does he know that God designed the watch and a man didn’t? Paley argues that we have never seen a watch been made and that we are all incapable of designing something so unique and intelligent; therefore, we can conclude that something greater than us must have created it.
Paley’s Problem with Purpose In The Evidence of Design William Paley delivers a teleological argument. He claims the cosmos are aligned in a systematic order, which leads to the conclusion that an almighty deity is responsible for creation. He begins by visualizing an analogy of a rock and watch that are lain on the ground. When found, one may assume that the rock has been there forever, but it would be ignorant to claim the same about the watch.
Megan Castro Professor Jason Southworth PHI 2010 January 25, 2016 Paper #1: Paley In William Paley 's The Teleological Argument, Paley concludes that God exists-or rather a "watchmaker", i.e. a designer of the universe, exists. Paley presents his argument with the over-stretching of the analogy that the existence of such an intricate design that is a watch, has a great purpose, as opposed to a stone that is of no use, and serves as proof of a watchmaker. Paley uses the example of a watch to explain and conclude that the universe is just the same. The intricate design that is the universe has a great purpose and serves as proof of a universe maker, i.e. God, which further concludes that God exists.
Paley argues for the existence of God by using an argument through analogy, comparing the universe to a watch. He says that
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
Philosopher David Hume’s argument against William Paley’s addresses the most common criticism in why Paley is wrong. Hume’s points out two major flaws in Paley’s argument that there is a creator of the universe. The first argument is the lack of evidence, in which he states that the existence of such a creator can only be proved through the a pattern of observation, which there is no pattern for. This addresses how without any form of pattern through observation that it is difficult to make a correlation between the universe and its designer (Speaks). Secondly he argumes that there are limitations to the design argument that Paley does not address.
All of the philosophers that we've studied so far have made some valid arguments concerning the existence, or non-existence of God. If I had to be swayed by an opinion for God's existence, or non-existence it would have to be by William Paley's argument. Paley's analogy is strong because of his metaphor of the watch to explain the universe and the existence of an intelligent designer. The weak part of this analogy is that the watchmaker as evidence can be produced in the physical form; the universe maker as evidence cannot be produced in physical form.
The blind watch maker analogy that was presented is brilliant. Creationists, use their own version of the watchmaker argument saying if you were walking down a beach and you found a watch you could assume there was a designer. But when it comes to talking about existence, physical reality, and life, It’s a little different. The analogy at first glance seems to work but then you realize that even metaphorically speaking it’s an equivocation fallacy.
According to William Paley’s argument in “The Teleological Argument" everything was created for a specific purpose. Paley uses the watch and mentions its maker to compare the creation of the world and God. In order to explain why certain objects have a specific design and purpose, Paley uses the watch to develop this idea. According to Paley, the watch has many intricate parts which contribute not only to the overall design but to the overall function of the watch. This can be compared to God and how he created each individual to serve a purpose.
William Paley is a philosopher well known in the 18th and 19th century. He was well known for his piece entitled, “Natural Theology” which is a piece that argues for the existence of God and constantly compares it to a watch. He argues that if no one has seen someone one has seen a watch before, they would most likely believe that someone created it. He argues this because the complexity of the object was to complex for it to have just been that way naturally. In some people 's opinions, God can not create something so complex and can only be man made.
Hume’s have stated that Aquinas’s design argument should not be based on religion and the intelligent designer lacks the intellectual capability to design a complex universe. These two objections lacks validity and is very subjective. Hume’s provides no reliable source to prove his claim. Aquinas’s presents a valid argument that the world is governed by God. First, he used philosophical reasoning suggesting that everything in the universe operate and moves for an end.