Both, the universe and a watch have several parts, these parts work together for a purpose, they are made with a specific material, the parts produce together regulated motion and if any part would be different, this motion wouldn’t be produced. Similarly to Paley’s 5th feature of Design, Stannard proposes, that if, for example, the sun were just 5% closer or 1% further away to the earth, there wouldn’t be any life possible on earth. With all these fundamental ideas of Paley’s and Stannard’s Argument of Design they aim to prove that God as the Designer of the universe is the only explanation for how such specific processes can work. In addition to this Tennant and Swinburne both put forward God as the simplest explanation for the
Supporters of design assume that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid. A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Most biologists support the idea of evolution, by means of natural selection.
Paley then used his theory on the world. He said that the universe was not an accident and therefore must also have a designer. As the universe has such an intricate design, for example the position he earth is from the sun is so exact that the universe mist have an intelligent designer; God. Paley believed it must have been God because he is omnipotent and is therefore powerful enough to create the world and the complexity it contains. Paley believed that no one else would have been intelligent enough to create the order and complexity of the universe.
There is evidence of this within the Bible when God causes miracles however there is also evidence of this in the natural world as when God causes natural disasters, he is interacting with his creation. The Prime Mover cannot interact with creation as he necessarily exists and is independent from everyone
Aquinas’ version was arguing from design qua regularity. He believed the world has to be designed because of the overall order of the universe that couldn’t have come about by itself or by chance, so therefore an intelligent being must have set in place, and the being must be God. In contrast, Paley believes someone designed the world because everything
‘We see examples of design throughout the natural world and conclude that an intelligent designer is clearly demonstrated.’- Assess whether this argument succeeds. Because of the complex nature of the world and the ability of things to fill such a specific purpose, we can conclude that this cannot be merely coincidence. We can infer that an intelligent designer such as God has created the universes and everything in them because of this. I will seek to prove that this argument does not succeed and that there are in fact alternative explanations for what a theist would see as ‘intelligent design’. The design argument was formulated by Paley.
He also says there are a chain of causes and effects leading back to the beginning of the Universe. He did not believe in infinite regress, and so, for him, there had to be a first cause, and that first cause has to be God. Aquinas’ Cosmological argument has many positive points which could be used to prove the existence of God, and his argument is both logical and convincing. However, I believe there are some major flaws within it, and I hope to use these flaws to show that Aquinas’ Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of a God. The first point to Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument is about Motion.
However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it. As a result, many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of God. One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Ontological position. Ontological arguments are “derived from some source, other than observation of the world, so from reason alone.” The first and best-known Ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is.
For example, humans are contingent beings, we have been created, we live and one day we’ll die. Whereas, a necessary being is a being which has to exist; we cannot imagine it not existing. A necessary being does not move in and out of existence, however always exists. God, being the greatest being, has to be a necessary being, as necessary beings are the greatest possible beings. We have proof that God is a necessary being, as God is self originated; God is independent of all other beings.
All human beings seek to be rational in what they do. Yes, science does provide a method of justifying rationality but God is the other part of the spectrum that science cannot explain. God is also another figure that provides rationality to someone who does not understand science the only path to salvation and to rationality is through religion. If this form of God takes 1000 different shapes across many religions, it does not make God untrue, it is just a manifestation. The biggest contradictory idea against the motion would be that of whether God can be proven empirically.