Argument for the existence of God: Design Argument.

Question 1

A posteriori

Answer 1

Arguments that depend on sense experience

Question 2

Empirical

Answer 2

argument that is based on the experience of the senses (smell, touch)

Question 3

Inductive

Answer 3

When used of arguments, refers to those based on probability

Question 4

Analogical

Answer 4

It is based on a comparison between the features of 2 different things. Attempt to explain meaning of something

Question 5

Natural theology

Answer 5

View that questions Gods existence, nature + attributes can be answered by reasoning, science and observation rather than appeal to special revelation.

Question 6

Special revelation

Answer 6

Refers to scripture or some form of religious experience.

Question 7

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT AO1

Paley’s arguments

Answer 7

A POSTERIORI: 1) its empirical in nature 2) its based on the sense experience.
INDUCTIVE: 1)Based on probability + not knock-down proof 2) conclusion is not necessarily true: stronger the evidence more likely to be true.
ANALOGICAL: 1) Based on the comparison of 2 different things.
PALEY’S arguments uses the approach to natural theology- makes no appeal to any form of special revelation (BIBLE OR RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE)
-Uses reason, latest scientific knowledge + observation.

Question 8

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT

PALEY’S BOOK ( natural theology) published 1802

Answer 8

• complexity
• purpose ( design qua purpose) Teleological argument
• Regularity(design qua regularity)

Question 9

PALEY ANOLOGICAL DESIGN ARGUEMENT

Answer 9

At his time, Paley had the most effective way of arguing for the existence of God.
-He uses the watch analogy:
1) A watch couldn’t have appeared by accident
2) existence of the watch gives proof of a watch maker
Thus, the universe couldn’t have came about by accident, as its intricate design eg: molecular structure of ice
“The watch had a watch maker”
“We must also argue from the world a world maker”

Question 10

DESIGN QUA PURPOSE

Answer 10

Everything in this world has a purpose like the watch for telling the time. He linked the example of an eye.

The eye has lots of intrinsic part which allows us to see.
He believes the eye is due to an intelligent designer. God gave us the ability to see.
Birds feathers, bones and wings = perfect for flight.

Question 11

DESIGN QUA REGULARITY

Answer 11

Order of the universe suggests a designer. Paley used astronomy to show this, Newton’s laws of motion to prove the design of the universe is intrinsic. He suggest the motion and orbits of the planets have not come by chance. Thus, there must be something greater imposing order- GOD.

Question 12

Things to note about PALEYS DA

Answer 12

• Treats world as a mechanical object which is comparable to things humans make.
• concerned with order and purpose
• uses principles of “similar effects + causes” (watchmaker)
• concern with proportion- watchmaker + worldmaker, both intelligent designs but are hugely different
• He is motivated due to his religious faith

Question 13

Criticisms of DA

Answer 13

starter: “Hume’s criticisms of the design arguments may be applied to Paley’s argument” ( from different times in history)

Question 14

Criticisms of DA

HUME; MECHANIST ANALOGIES ARE INAPPROPIATE

Answer 14

Starter: “Hume’s criticisms of the design arguments may be applied to Paley’s argument” ( from different times in history)
David Hume:
Mechanistic analogies are inappropriate:
- Deliberate analogies are chosen as they encourage the idea of a designer.
-Living organisms would be more appropriate eg:vegatable.
- Hume suggested due to changing arrangements of atoms over an infinite period of time, it was inevitable order would emerge.
-Suggested the possibility universe alternates between periods of order + chance, existence is currently period of order.

Question 15

criticisms of DA

HUME; MECHANIST ANALOGY IS ANTHROPOMORPHIC

Answer 15

Anthropomorphic ( language connects human characteristics or ideas to non human ethics):
-humans have no knowledge on how the universe are made.
-Thus we nothing about the capacities or nature of any universe designer
-mechanist analogy creates the universe designer in our image
..The designer might not be the God of Christian theism
-cause must be proportional to its effects
-Traditional Christian understanding of God isint required by what is known of the universe.
- intelligent minds are attached to physical bodies, so the designer could be mortal or long dead.

Question 16

criticisms of DA

Problem of Evil

Answer 16

• The existence of much moral + natural evil in the world is evidence the world is flawed
• Hume considered God’s omnipotence + omnibenevolence as incompatible to the existence of evil.

Question 17

Evaluation of Paley’s DA

WEAKNESSES

Answer 17

1) Existence of evil suggests incompetent or malevolent designer - or no designer
2) Universe could’ve “designed itself” by chance. Support for this multiverse theories.
3) Claims made by theism about the nature of a designer God go beyond the evidence
4) Apparent order + purpose + design are chance. Support from Darwin + Dawkins.

Question 18

Evaluation of Paleys DA

STRENGTHS

Answer 18

1) Swinburne explanation = existence of single omnipotent God = explanation
2) PALEY= evil is unavoidable for God to bring good. (Free will defence/ Process theodicy/ Hick’s ireneaean theodicy.
3) Evolution requires explanation (Swinburne) Not compatible without theism.
4) Paley= “Nature shows intention” supported by ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE. ( multiverse theory is incapable of truth.)

Question 19

ARGUMENT CANNOT offer proof of God

Answer 19

1) Only deductive arguments can give absolute proof.
DA is inductive, so can never be certain.
2) Paley’s observations cannot be explained naturally. e.g: regular rotation of the planets is due to gravity
if multiverse theory = true then design is pure chance.

Question 20

ARGUMENT CAN offer proof of God

Answer 20

1) Most things in life based off inductive arguments. “true beyond reasonable doubt” stronger evidence = more probable true the claims.
2) some saw, laws of nature = explanation, not sure multiverse theory is true. Challenges do not diminish probability that Paley’s argument= true.

Question 21

Relevance to Religious faith

POSITIVE

Answer 21

Paleys argument =
-Rationally + empirically based
-consistent with Biblical teaching= guiding presence directing human life + nature in purposeful way.
-THEISTS can’t prove God, nor can atheists disprove:
Both rely on reasoning + empirical evidence.
Paley’s Argument = provides strong support for theists, with simplicity + reinforcement of cosmological argument.
- (according to H.H price, faith should include “belief that” acceptance + “belief in” trust)
Paleys Argument = evidence to support “belief that” God exists. + his description of worlds design encourages “belief in” God.

Question 22

RTRF

NEGATIVE

Answer 22

FIDEISTS: Rational argument play no part in faith = doesn’t lead to commitment. (only faith gives certainty)
Paley’s argument does not tackle problem of evil.

Question 23

Anthropic principle ?

Answer 23

Boundary conditions (cosmological constants) had to be precise for intelligent life to develop. - Not here be chance, God “fine tuned” these conditions.

Question 24

FIDEISM ?

Answer 24

View that religion is a matter of pure faith in sense of commitment. Rational argument has no role to play.