Teleological/design argument Flashcards
What is Swinburnes design argument?
Explanation, not Ps and Cs
Aims to prove the existence of a designer making the claim that the universe contains regularities of temporal order (An orderliness in the way one thing follows another eg. how if you let go of something it falls back to earth).
These temporal regularities are explained by the laws of nature
Regularities of succession: things that come about because someone intentionally brings them about
The regularities of temporal succession described by laws of nature are the actions of a person, who brought about temporal order
What is an outline of Swinburnes design argument?
Ps and Cs
Aims to prove the existence of a designer making the claim that the universe contains regularities of temporal order (An orderliness in the way one thing follows another eg. how if you let go of something it falls back to earth).
Regularities of succession: things that come about because someone intentionally brings them about
P1-Universe as a whole contains temporal order/regularities of succession
P2-Two possible hypotheses: Temporal order has scientific explanation, or temporal order has persona explanation
P3-H1 fails as science can only explain the existence of regularities of succession in terms of more fundamental regularities of succession, so a scientific explanation cannot be given
P4-H2 can explain fundamental scientific regularities of succession as they are similar to regularities of succession produced by agents, meaning they are produced by rational agency
P5-The agency in question would have to be of immense power, which would be God
C1-Therefore God exists
What is Hume’s design argument from analogy?
Not the Ps and Cs
Aims to prove the existence of a designer through idea of fitting of means to ends
(The intriciate co-ordination of parts to achieve a purpose,which infers that something has been designed)
What an outline of Hume’s design argument from analogy?
Ps and Cs mate
P1-In the fitting of means to ends, nature resembles products of human design
P2- Similar effects have similar causes
P3- The cause of products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design
C1- Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design
What is Humes objection to his own argument? (Teleological)
-Claims that the analogy is weak
The products of human design (House, watch) aren’t much like nature or the entirety of universe
Great disproportion between a part of the universe and whole universe undermines inference that something similar to human intelligence caused universe.
We cant reasonably infer cause of nature is like a human mind
What is Paley’s design argument
Not Ps and Cs
Aims to prove existence of God through the comparing the properties of a watch and nature
Eg. If we saw a watch on the ground, we wouldn’t be satisfied by concluding it had always been there, unlike a stone
This is cause watch has parts organised for a purpose, (part of design)
we can then conclude its been designed by a designer
He argues that works of nature has same properties as watch (parts organised for a purpose) which infers them also being designed by designer
What does Paley claim about a designer?
an addon for the design argument
The designer must be distinct from the universe, because everything bears the mark of design (so we must appeal to something distinct)
Design requires a mind, as it requires one that percieves the purpose and its parts, meaning the designer has a mind
What is the outline of Paley’s design argument?
P1- Anything with parts organised for purpose is designed
P2- Nature contains things which have parts organised for purpose
C1- Therefore nature contains things that are designed
P3- Design can only be explained in terms of a designer
P4- A designer must have a mind and be distinct from what is designed
C2- Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
C3-Therefore such a mind, “God” exists
What is the problem of spatial disorder argument?
Counter to Paley’s design argument
Argument questions why Paley takes the order to be more striking than the vast disorder when considering cause of the universe
Acknowledges that Paley’s argument appeals to regularities of spatial disorder eg. parts of an eye, organised to serve a purpose, exist in an orderly way
However, what is meant to be explained is the whole universe, which contains a lot of spatial disorder eg. vast areas of space that have no organisation of parts/purpose. What reasons are there to suggest the order outweighs the disorder
What is Paley’s response to spatial order
-The inference of parts for purpose still stands even if the parts dont contribute to its purpose
The balance of spatial order/disorder isnt crucial, we shouldnt need to weigh one against the other to tell the organisation of parts for purpose must be explained in terms of designer
What is Hume objection to the design argument from a unique case?
-To make an inference of cause of universe, we need to experience the origin of many worlds
Since we don’t have this, we can’t know what caused the universe
-We can only know the cause of an effect when we have repeated experience of effect following the cause
In case of products of human design, we have repeated experience of designer arranging parts for purpose, but we dont have this for nature
We don’t know that its a designer that brings about this effect in natural things, and the arrangements of parts for a purpose show that the cause is a designer
So we can’t infer the cause of order in nature is a designer
Is the existence of a designer a good explanation?
Swinburne counter
Swinburne introduces entity called designer
For designer to be satisfactory explanation of design in nature we need to explain the designer
A mind is as complex and as ordered as nature so if nature requires explanation so does order of designer mind
If we cant explain designer, it would be better to stop explanations at the level of nature
Swineburne reply
Misrepresents explanation
Eg. Scientists introduce entities such as subatomic particle in order to explain stuff like explosions in nuclear accelerator
Scientists dont know how to explain them, and this is completely normal and this happens throughout scientific history
So we can still say designer is good explanation for laws of scientfic nature even if we cant explain it
