Design arguments Flashcards
Humes design argument from analogy
1) the universe resembles a machine
2) by law of analogy, if x and y resemble each other then so must their causes
3) machines were designed by intelligent beings
4) therefore the universe must be designed by an intelligent being
compare washing machine to human eye
by proportion, the designer must be a being of divine intelligence-god
Humes objection to the argument from analogy
the strength of an analogy completely depends on how well x resembles y
for instance to postulate blood runs through josh because blood runs through me is fine. but that sap runs through tree is not
Hume says universe doesn’t resemble machine enough - a lot of it is living and most of it is self-sustaining. its more like a plant
furthermore, the vastness of the universe suggest the possibility that only this section exhibits order like a machine
Paleys design argument
1) nature exhibits things that are complex orderly and purposeful
2) things that are cop must have been designed
3) anything designed must have a designer
4) the universe must have a designer
5) the designer must have a mind and be distinct from his creation
6) therefore the universe must have been designed by a mind distinct from it
7) that must be god
The designer must have a mind to create purpose
The creator must be transcendent. He cannot be part of his design (baby cannot give birth to himself
The problem of spatial disorder
Spatial order can be understood in two ways:
a) randomness exhibited in the universe (shape of clouds)
b) and aspects of nature that seem flawed (cancer cells)
both a and b seems to break the rules that the universe exhibits COP. the world is still complex but not entirely ordered and purposeful
while the universe does seem ordered to us, it is clear that it isn’t perfectly so. we can conceive of worlds far better than our (one without spatial disorder)
As Hume suggest, if effect is proportionate to cause, then our creator is not a perfect being but rather a flawed one - infant deity
Swinburnes design argument
1) the universe contains regularities of succession (i.e the regularities in the laws of nature)
2) there are two explanations for the regularities in succession: A) a scientific one and B) a personal one
3) A fails as science cannot explain itself
4) B can explain regularities of succession just like how personal accounts often explain regularise of succession within human agents
5) by analogy, the explanation must therefore be a rational agent
6) the agency in question must be of immense power and intelligence, free and disembodies
7) therefore such an agent is god must exist
the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case
the universe is sui generis meaning that we only have one case of it
Hume says that we need the constant repeated cause and effect relation to be sure of the link. (billiard ball example)
we can only infer on the creation of the universe if we can exhibit multiple causes and effects of it
therefore the design argument fails as we are linking the cause which we are familiar to, to an effect we have zero experience of
the epicurean hypothesis
Hume points out that the cause must always be proportional to the effect. in the cases of the design argument, they aren’t
there are plenty of other explanations that fit the role of creator
the creator here is simply random collisions of atoms in an infinite time frame. if the time frame is infinite then we must have a time where everything exhibits order (monkey typewriter)
so it could be chance, not God
