Design Argument

Question 1

Spatial Order

Answer 1

The arrangement of parts laid out in such a way as to achieve a purpose.
E.g Human eye

Question 2

Paley’s Argument in Sf

Answer 2

1) Anything with spatial order is designed (watch)
2) Nature contains parts that are organised to serve a purpose.
3) Therefore, nature contains things which are designed.
4) Design can only be explained in term of a designer.
5) A designer must be or have a mind distinct from what is designed.
C1) Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature.
C2) Therefore, such a mind (God) exists.

Question 3

Paley’s Eye Example

Answer 3

Parts of an eye must work together to produce its purpose of seeing.
If one part didn’t function properly, the purpose wouldn’t be achieved. Spatial order allows it to.
We can se this is true for many other things in nature.
Due to the complex arrangement of nature, he infers there must be a designer.

Question 4

Paley’s inductive leap

Answer 4

Where there is design there must be a designer.

Question 5

Swinburne’s Design Argument

Answer 5

Distinguishes between two types of order in nature.
In terms of purpose (eye) but also in terms of temporal regularities.
Temporal regularities are the laws of nature.
So the design evident in nature are the laws of nature themselves.
Swinburne argues then that the best explanation of the laws of nature is the activity of a designer.

Question 6

Temporal Regularities

Answer 6

How one thing follows another.
Temporal regularities are the laws of nature.

Question 7

Swinburne’s argument from scientific limitation

Answer 7

Easy to dismiss spatial order - evolution and disorder (blindness)
He argues science cannot explain the fundamental laws of nature.
Science must assume the fundamental laws of nature in order to provide an explantion.

Question 7

Swinburne’s personal explantion

Answer 7

Two types of explanations: science + personal intent.
We are the explanation for the products of human activity.
So, there are temporal regularities related to human actions that are explained in terms of persons.

Question 8

Swinburne’s final argument

Answer 8

1) Temporal regularities - human actions - explained in terms of persons.
2) Temporal regularities - laws of nature - similar to those explained in terms of persons
3) By analogy, explain regularity of laws of nature in terms of persons, no scientific explanation.
4) Only two types of explanation.
5) Therefore, no better explanation for laws of nature than persons.
6) Therefore, produce by a person.
7) Therefore, a designer exists.

Question 9

Paley and Swinburne similarties

Answer 9

Both posteriori - from empirical observations of the universe.
Both make inferences from features.

Question 10

Paley and Swinburne differences

Answer 10

Swinburne incorporates role of science - can accommodate for progression in science.
Swinburne says temporal order suggests God, Paley argues spatial order does.
Swinburne does not attempt to prove the designer has classical theist attributes of God.
Swinburne has two explanations for products.