Stacey Snyder Professor McMichael Introduction to Philosophy April 08, 2014 Paley’s Teleological Argument In this paper, I will be discussing Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God. This is a valid argument but in my opinion it is not enough to prove the existence of God. I believe that even if all the premises are true and they relate to the conclusion, which they do, that the argument can still be proven wrong by other theories. Paley’s teleological arguments, also called the design argument, attempts to prove that God exists by proving that God created the earth and created humans. Paley’s version of the argument is commonly recognized by the “watchmaker” analogy which is as follows.
The teleological argument offers a way we can explain God’s existence in terms of design and nature. It explains that the world is too complex and diverse for there not to be a designer, such as God, at work. This argument derives from Thomas Aquinas’ work from his Summa Theologiae. His fifth way suggests that inanimate objects cannot have ordered themselves since they lack intelligence. For example, planets could not have put themselves into orbit, yet they are in perfect order and placement so therefore there must be a designer, an intelligent being, that did so.
How successful is the teleological argument in proving the existence of God? The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument: it tries to justify the existence of God by asking “Why are we here?” Is it due to design or chance? The argument goes as far back as the days of Cicero and has been objected by the likes of Charles Darwin. One of the first known teleological arguments is the argument from analogy, which is argued by William Paley and Aquinas. Paley believes that some natural objects display design like qualities- they display a fitness to purpose.
PART A: Explain Mill’s challenge to the teleological argument. (25marks) The teleological argument claims that God designed the world with a purpose. God is often described to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Mill criticises the idea of the teleological argument, he doesn’t believe that the world is designed by a God because within nature there are cruelty and crimes that are unpunished. Mill argues that if God designed the universe he wouldn’t have created something containing any evil at all it wouldn’t fit in with his description.
Therefore, man is obligated to repent and put his faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and bear good fruit or face the righteous judgement of God. In Romans 1:20, Paul reveals that the natural world testifies to a supernatural cause. According to the scientific evidence, nature itself had a beginning. As Dr. Frank Turek points out, the supernatural cause that created nature must be spaceless (Because it created space), timeless (Because it created time), immaterial (Because it created matter), powerful (Because it created out of nothing), intelligent (Because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed), and personal (Because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something; impersonal forces don’t make choices). This evidence is consistent with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Paul eluded to this when he said that God’s invisible qualities, eternal power, and divine nature is clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse (Rom.1:20).
The fundamental premise behind any teleological argument is that everything has a design and purpose which has been constructed by a higher intellectual being (in many cases this refers to God). There are many questions in life that have been left unanswered or addressed with unproven theories and the only plausible explanation is God. This essay will be examining Paley’s teleological argument in support of God’s existence and the Darwinian reply to it. The beginning of the essay will be about Paley and the design hypothesis followed up with what Darwin had proposed. By presenting both arguments from the different sides, this essay will examine and question the Darwinian reply as well as Paley’s teleological argument and based
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’.
Present and critically assess one version of the ontological argument for the existence of God. (This can be an existing version, such as Anselm’s or Descartes’, or a generic or composite version.) The ontological argument is a priori argument that means that it is based on reasoning and independent of experience. With the ontological argument being a prior it gives a theoretical certainty, like in mathematics the idea that 1+1=2. In this essay I am going to focus on Anselm ontological argument and comment on its strengths and weakness of his argument to prove the existence of God.
I am a theist- I wholly and completely accept that a diety exists: a force greater than myself, a being responsible for the creation of the cosmos, an entity satisfying the criteria of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. However, I strongly feel the famous historical arguments used to prove God's existence are all founded on shaky grounds, many have troublesome implications and they directly contradict the idea of "belief" and "faith"- something so destitute in the contemporary human condition. Pascal's wager forces the rational person to choose a belief in god over non-belief. This is because given the worst case scenario, a person is better believing in a diety that does not exist (neutral outcome) than not believing in a diety
Explain Anselm’s ontological argument (25) Anselm uses an a priori argument bases on reason to prove gods existence, underlying all Anselm’s points is the idea that god must exist in reality by his own definition. Anselm begins by pointing out that even fools (atheists) can understand that god is the greatest conceivable being as it is what makes god who he is. However the fool dispute Anselms idea that god exists in reality, the fool is convince that god exists only in our understanding. Anselm says that the fool is silly, if he was only to exist as an idea in our understanding a greater being could be thought of meaning god would no longer be the greatest conceivable being. Therefore God must exist to meet his definition; those who deny