I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God. There is no real proof that God created the universe or people based on the teleological argument, although it is a valid argument, I just do not think that it is plausible that God created the earth. There are many other theories that give more evidence and better proof that counter the teleological argument. Works
Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all? Why is it like this? Why isn’t it different? Why something rather than nothing?. Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’.
Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,
Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection gives us an alternative way to explain the complex functionality that leads to Paley thinking that a designer has left his mark on the universe. However, the anthropic principle helps prove God’s existence. The Big Bang theory has strengthened the case for God, as has the theory of evolution. In fact when we consider all the physical conditions that the universe had to possess for humans to evolve then there seems to be a conspiracy to fix the
Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument. He argued that the ontological argument is invalid as we cannot define God ‘for the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God’. Aquinas rejects that there can be
Without God, there can be no absolutes or enforced morality. Furthermore, the cosmological argument asserts that because this universe has a beginning, it must have been created by something greater. Finally, when looking at the universe, we are forced to logically conclude that a God was behind the creation due to the deliberate way in which it is obviously set up in order to sustain human life. These principles show that Atheism, while given the appearance of science and discovery, fails to address the major questions that the theology of a creator God more than
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. Paley argues with his watch Analogy and if we would walk pass a watch we would assert that it was designed by an intelligent designer. For him and Stannard the only probable explanation for the universe’ existence is God. Paley maintains that everything which exhibits his 6 features of design, has to be designed by an intelligent designer. 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.
An argument against this however is the cause of God. Experience shows that nothing can be the cause of itself. The first cause argument also states that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It also defines God as the uncaused first cause because he is the only being capable of existing without a cause. The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe began to exist.
Assess how far the cosmological argument proves that God exists (15 mark) Russell opposed to the cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God. He added that Copleston was making a fallacy of composition, just because humans have a mother it does not mean the universe had to have a mother. The universe does not have to have a beginning. Russell is supporting the possibility of infinite regress or suggested that there may be no explanation for the universe. The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'.
He believes there truly is no comparison. In fact, he believes that there is nothing we can compare this world to because, as far as we know, there is not another world even similar to us. We have no standard in which we can judge our world because our world is all we know. According to Hume, we cannot assume a Christian God as the creator. He was not sure we could even assume a creator, let alone choose one religions God to be the true one.