[The status of Palev's Design Argument as 'Proof'

Question 1

The argument does offer proof

Answer 1

-Most things we accept as true in life are based on inductive arguments. They are accepted as ‘true beyond reasonable doubt’. The stronger the evidence is, the more probably true a claim is.

-Many theists may be satisfied that the argument offers proof because it is consistent with their pre-existing beliefs and world view. It is consistent with Biblical teaching (‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth’). Theists may see this rationally and empirically based argument as providing ‘proof’ for their religious beliefs.

-The argument uses observation empiricism - this is a popular way of attaining proof in the 21st century.

Question 2

The argument doesn’t offer proof

Answer 2

-Only deductive arguments can offer absolute proof. The Design Argument is inductive, so can never be absolutely certain. Pascal: “It has little impact”.

-Richard Dawkins has demonstrated significant flaws to the argument.

-Even if it proved design, it cannot prove who the designer is (this part of the argument requires faith). ‘God’ as designer is not empirically proven by Paley.

-There are credible alternative explanations for the appearance of design - they undermine the argument’s status as proof. An atheist is unlikely to be satisfied by the Design Argument because these alternative explanations demonstrate the argument is outdated / incorrect / flawed.

-Fideists (believe Knowledge of God is through faith alone) would argue that Natural Theology cannot lead to Knowledge of God. It is impossible to ‘know’ God in this way. Religion is a matter of faith, rather than objective proof.