Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God. The ontological argument believes that God is a “being”. The cosmological argument believes that God is “the universe”. Then there is the design argument which needs evidence to prove that there is a God. The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist.
Explain Paley’s version of the teleological argument (25) The teleological argument, or the design argument, is an argument to prove the existence of God, it is an A Posteriori argument which attempts to show that the design, order, complexity and purpose of the universe imply the existence of a God who gives the world such characteristics. The design argument follows the logical pattern that when we see things that are manmade, which are in an ordered pattern, or are particularly beautiful, complex or which work well then we must infer that they have been created that way by an intelligent designer. We must see that these things do not arise by chance, therefore when we look at the natural world and see that there is order, beauty, complexity and purpose we can see that the natural world closely resembles human inventions and therefore must also have and intelligent designer. The only thing that is powerful enough to design something as complex as the universe must be God. Therefore, God exists.
AO1: Give an account of the fundamental ideas of the Design Argument for the existence of God. Target: To improve my AO1 essay I should link two or more scholar through each paragraph and make the conclusion a short summary. The Argument of Design aims to prove God’s existence through a posteriori premise, that the universe is too complex to just came into existence by chance and therefore it has to be designed by God. All of its scholars using inductive reasoning, Aquinas and Paley aim to prove the existence of God through Analogy and Swinburne, Tennant and Stannard using Probabilities. Theist Stannard and Paley both start their arguments with the premise, that the universe has complex features, but Stannard proceed further the idea, that the universe is too complex to just happen by coincidence.
Explain Anselms ontological argument Part A The ontological argument is used as a rational explanation to support the existence of God. Anselms ontological argument is known as a “classic “explanation of the ontological argument and is used widely to support the existence of God. The ontological argument is a priori argument meaning that theories are developed to prove the existence of God using nothing but intellectual insight and reason: it does not depend upon our experience of the world to be verified. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” A way to simplify this explanation is thinking of God as being the greatest thing there can be, i.e. defining God as maximal perfection, there literally cannot be anything greater than God as God is the greatest thing that can possibly exist.
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.
There are things in the world that do not have the reason or cause of their existence, this mean that some things in the world are contingent - they might have no existed. The world is the real or imagined of individual objects, and none of these have the reason or cause of there existence and they depend of other causes. The universes explanation therefore must be eternal and self explanatory to be complete, necessary being - God and he is his own sufficient cause. Copleston redeveloped Aquinas’ argument by concentrating on contingency: 1)There are things in this world that are
As Paley explains, just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watchmaker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker. I will examine the argument presented by William Paley, in which he offers an argument from design that claims to show a clear reason why one should believe in God, due to the natural features of the world. I disagree with Paley in that there are many flaws to his argument. In my opinion Paley's argument is a deductive argument, in the sense that he first establishes a belief and uses it in order to reach his final conclusion, hence a deductive argument in which Paley’s premises might be somewhat true but his conclusion is false. .
We must take into account that we cannot just think because the universe is so complicated it must be designed who is to say natural processes couldn’t have done it or the Evolutionary theory is responsible for everything we know. A big problem with Paleys argument is how he connected purpose and design. By stating that everything is designed within the universe is to say everything was designed for an exact purpose and vice versa. For example, in the case of the watch it may not just serve the purpose for time it could be used for something else, the universe therefore cannot be compared to these components of design and function plausibly. The main point is that objects can serve many purposes for example a coffee pot holding down a piece of paper.
(Since he derived a contradiction from the premise, the premise itself must be false). Hume also argued that if an orderly and balanced natural world necessitates a special maker or designer, then God’s mind as it is well ordered, likewise requires a creator. Thus, this maker would similarly need another maker, and so on. The analogy between a watch and the universe is a weak analogy. 2.
The design argument (DA) starts from the observations about the world from there towards the conclusion that God exists. This argument appeals to the world as proof of Gods existence and therefore relies on our experiences. The DA is a posteriori argument for the existence of God; it seeks to prove that there is evidence for a designer in the world and used external imperial evidence as its proof. It is an inductive argument, which means it’s based on experience and the most probable explanation. William Paley is a classical contributor to the DA and like St. Aquinas he believed that the world is too complex and well ordered to have happened by chance therefore it must have designed by a greater being, ‘God’.