Telelogical Arguments (God)

Question 1

Cleanthes’ Argument from Analogy

Answer 1

Argues the universe has parts like a machine, due to the fact that:
“Effects that are similar have causes that are similar”

And like a machine needs a person/designer that has the ‘wisdom and intelligence’ to create said machine (put together the parts)..

The universe also needs a designer who has wisdom and intelligence to put together its parts. This is God.

Formally:

P1. We can see the universe has parts that work together towards an end with incredible accuracy
P2. In this way, the universe resembles a machine, as they have parts that work towards an end/purpose.
P3. Effects that are similar have causes that are similar.
P4. Machines are causes by human designers possessing thought, wisdom and intelligence.
C1. Therefore the universe must be caused by a designer possessing thought, wisdom and intelligence that are proportional to the scale of the universe.
C2. Therefore God exists.

Question 2

Objection to the Argument from Analogy: Weak analogy

Answer 2

Analogies are strong if the two things (X and Y) resemble each other in numerous ways. An analogy is weak if they are not very alike or very unalike.

Hume argues there are very few similarities between a machine and the universe.
Also, Cleanthes must infer from a tiny part of the universe (the bit we can observe) and apply to the universe as a whole, which weakens the analogy further.

Due to the analogy being so weak, we can conclude nothing about what designed the universe.

Question 3

Objection to the Argument from Analogy: Unique Case

Answer 3

Hume says that to say that X caused Y, we must repeatedly see that X caused Y.

We cannot say that X caused Y based on very few experiences of event X linking to event Y.
eg if you wore a ‘lucky’ shirt once and your sports team won, there would be no grounds for inferring the shirt caused them to win.

P1. Design/Analogy arguments make the inference that this universe was caused by a designer.
P2. We can say ‘X caused Y’ only if we can repeatedly observe that event X conjoins(links) with even Y
P3. We have observed one universe - this universe - and its properties are a unique case
P4. And we have never observed the origins of any universe
C1. Therefore we cannot make inferences about the cause (and origins) of this universe and its properties.
C2. Therefore design/analogy arguments fail

Question 4

Argument from Spatial Order (Watch)

Answer 4

Paley uses a watch to show indicators of design, which therefore shows distinct signs of spatial order:

a. The watch has several parts
b. These parts have been made with the right materials (eg cogs)
c. These parts work together for a purpose

P1. A watch has features of spatial order and purpose (A to C)
P2. Any design with these features must have been designed by a designer.
P3. Therefore a watch must have been designed by a designer
P4. Every feature that is in the watch (A to C) also exists in nature - but on a bigger scale
C1. Therefore nature has a designer
C2. This is God.

Question 5

Objection to Spatial Order: Spatial Disorder

Answer 5

Hume says that the universe contains too much “vice and mystery and disorder”.
So, the design argument is guilty of ignoring the overwhelming amount of disorder in favour of of using on the small amount of order we can see.

Examples of Spatial disorder:

• Large areas of the universe are empty - if lacking order/purpose is is the norm, our order may just be coincidence.
• Parts of the world unexpectedly and frequently going wrong (volcanos, earthquakes etc) - Unfinished order; result of shoddy workmanship by God.

Question 6

Swinburne: Argument from Temporal order

Answer 6

Swinburne thinks he can’t prove the existence of a God that has all attributes of the ‘Philosopher’s God’ but he can prove the existence of a very powerful, rational agent that is responsible for the universe.

Temporal order: The patterns of behaviours of objects over time. eg Newtons laws of Physics

Scientists can’t explain why the laws of nature/physics are the way they are the way they are.

Swinburne says that there must be a personal explanation for these laws, as the thing that created them must have wisdom and intelligence.

This is God.

Question 7

Objection to Swinburne’s Argument from Temporal Order

Answer 7

This argument is an abductive one; it says that a rational agent (God) is the best explanation.

However, this does not provide certainty as we can only experience and perceive the effect (temporal order) and infer that there is a cause (God).

So it cannot be a form of scientific proof as there is no certainty.