GOD: Teleological/Design arguments Flashcards
What is the aim of the design argument from design for the existence of God, as presented by Hume?
The design argument from analogy for the existence of God, as presented by Hume aims to prove the existence of God.
It seeks to do this with reference to the observed complexity of the natural world.
What is the standard form of the design argument from design for the existence of God, as presented by Hume?
P1: Human artefacts have spatial order.
P2: Nature itself/natural entities also have spatial order.
P3: Human artefacts have spatial order because they have been deliberately designed by an intelligent being.
P4: Similar effects typically have similar causes.
This is the general logic of an argument from analogy.
C1: Therefore, nature/natural entities within it (probably) have spatial order because they were deliberately designed by an intelligent being.
P5: The natural world/natural entities are much more complicated than human artefacts.
P6: This greater complexity probably requires greater intelligence.
C2: Therefore this intelligent being/designer which exists probably has a much greater intelligence than a human.
C3: Therefore God exists
What is spatial order?
Complexity (in a single moment of time) which allows something to fulfil a function; if it lacked that specific complexity, it would be unable to fulfil its function.
What are examples for the design argument from design for the existence of God, as presented by Hume?
A human artefact with spatial order - A telescope.
The arrangement of lenses is necessary for it to be able to magnify objects in the distance, if they were arranged otherwise it will not be able to do this
The natural world/a natural entity has spatial order -An eye
The arrangement of cells including rods and cones is necessary for it to be able to send visual sense data to the mind, if they were arranged otherwise it will not be able to do this.
What type of argument is the design argument from design for the existence of God, as presented by Hume?
The design argument from analogy is a non-deductive argument.
An argument from analogy, which can suggest the likelihood of the conclusion based on the premises, but not guarantee it.
The design argument from analogy is justified a posteriori - It is based on observed complexity in the world.
What is the aim of Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose?
Paley’s design argument aims to prove the existence of God.
It seeks to do this with reference to the observed complexity of the natural world.
What is Paley’s design argument (in standard form)?
P1: Nature itself (and natural entities within it: e.g. eyes, organisms) has ‘spatial order.
P2: Nature can only have spatial order if they were deliberately designed by an intelligent being.
This is something that can be inferred without any comparison to other complex objects which we know to be designed.
C1: Therefore, an intelligent being/designer exists (and created the entire natural universe).
P3: Nature/natural entities are of great complexity.
P4: This greater complexity/variety requires great intelligence.
C2: Therefore, this intelligent being/designer must be very intelligent.
P5: This intelligent being/designer cannot be part of nature since nature as a whole has design properties that need explaining.
C3: Therefore, this greatly intelligent being/designer must exist outside of the natural world.
MC: Therefore God exists.
What are examples for Paley’s Design argument?
For P2 - Paley remarks that even if some such thing was produced by another thing (e.g. watches that produced further watches, humans that produce new humans), and even if this went on for infinity, this would still not explain the design features (the spatial order) that these individual things possess. This is because, to take an example, hens don’t design their eggs.
What type of argument is Paley’s Design argument?
Paley’s design argument is a deductive argument.
This is because the relationship between the premises of the argument is such that if they are true, the truth of the conclusion is entailed with necessity.
This is different from Hume’s argument, because Hume makes the inference that the natural world has a designer from analogy (i.e. on the basis of the comparison), whereas Paley claims that all things with spatial order must be necessarily designed and the inference is therefore deductive.
Paley is illustrates this principle with an example, not an analogy.
What are the share aims between Paley’s Design argument and the design argument from design for the existence of God, as presented by Hume?
Both Paley and Hume’s design arguments are attempting to prove the existence of God.
Both of them are attempting to prove it on the basis of the presence of spatial order in the natural world.
Spatial order refers to any instance of complexity (in a single moment of time) where the complexity is instrumental in something’s ability to fulfil a function.
This means that both arguments are justified a posteriori.
Their justification follows from the fact that we can observe spatial order in the natural world i.e. dependent on experience.
What is the aim for Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity?
Swinburne’s design argument attempts to prove the existence of God.
Done with reference to temporal order, namely patterns of behaviour of objects of objects over time, in such a way that they act predictably.
What is the standard form for Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity?
P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order.
P2: There are two possible hypotheses to explain this: (H1) temporal order has a scientific explanation;
(H2) temporal order has a personal explanation
Alternatively it could just be a brute fact, but this is not considered to be a very good explanation (owing to the principle of sufficient reason).
P3: (H1) fails
science can only explain the existence of temporal order (natural laws) in terms of more fundamental temporal order (natural laws). Science cannot itself explain why the fundamental laws of science exist as they do.
P4: (H2) can explain the temporal order that is the fundamental laws of nature.
It is similar to the temporal order produced by human agents (the singing of the song.) and so, by analogy, are produced by a free intelligent being.
P5: Because the whole physical world contains temporal order, the free intelligent being in question would have to be of immense power and intelligence, free and disembodied, which is to say God.
The laws of nature are far greater in scope than the singer of a song, and therefore the designer must be correspondingly greater.
The designer of natural laws must be outside of them, otherwise their existence would be paradoxical (They could not design the laws of nature of they existed as part of them, because the laws of nature would not exist until they had designed them.
C: Therefore, God exists.
What are examples for Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity?
Gravity refers to the fact that objects with mass are attracted towards each-other - this is temporal order because it concerns movement over time and the fact that this movement is predictable.
Scientific explanations might be able to say ‘how’ gravity works, but not ‘why’ the universe is such that there is gravity.
An effect with a personal cause - Singing begins when someone decides to start singing - that is why there is singing. A scientific explanation would only be able to tell us ‘how’ someone sings.
What is the type of argument for Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity?
Non-deductive -argument is such that if the premises of the argument are true, the truth of the conclusion is not entailed by necessity, but instead suggested with likelihood.
Has features of an argument from analogy because it argues that similar effects are likely to have similar causes, specifically that the temporal order found in the laws of nature is likely to have a similar cause to the temporal order found in singing/dancing.
It also has features of abductive reasoning - it suggests that temporal order is more likely to have a personal explanation than simply be a brute fact, because this would be a better explanation.
