He does not see why order means there has to be a designer. However, he is open to the idea of a designer or creator but doesn’t see why this has to be a God. He believes that there are many different possibilities such as a “team of Gods” or even a totally different entity. Hume believes the world is far too complex to be compared to something as simple as the mechanism of a watch. He believes there truly is no comparison.
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
Paley uses the watch analogy to show purpose. He depicts a man walking along who finds a rock, the man presumes that it must have came about through natural circumstances. The man then finds a watch and concludes it is there due to a designer as it is far too complex to be there by chance. Paley wrote that there is obvious regularity in the universe, for example gravity which can not have came about by chance. If gravity was slightly stronger or weaker on earth, earth would not be able to sustain human life, the fact it is perfect hints that there is a designer at
In it, he wrote that if a pocket watch is found on the ground, it seems logical to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by one or more watchmakers, and not by natural forces. He therefore argued just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker. Paley went on to argue that the complex structures of living things and the remarkable adaptations of plants and animals required an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer, sometimes referred to as an intelligent agent is “the hypothetical willed and self-aware entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life.” He believed the natural world was the creation of God and showed the nature of the creator. According to Paley, God had carefully designed "even the most humble and insignificant organisms" and all of their minute features (such as the wings and antennae of earwigs).
These other objects, in turn, was put into motion by still another object preceding it, and so forth. This series cannot go on backward to infinity, though, since there would otherwise be no first mover and thus no subsequent movement. Therefore, we must conclude that there is a first unmoved mover, which we understand to be God. Second, we observe that everything has an efficient cause and that nothing is or can be the cause of itself. It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause.
John Parker Professor Duncan Criminology 3 December 2012 Va Tech Massacre 1. Is there any value in trying to discover why this event happened? Personally finding out why Cho committed this tragedy would not change the way of things in the slightest. For example, if the reason for Cho committing the massacre was that he was bullied it wouldn’t have a value. The most that our society can do it say don’t bully other people, which I have personally experienced does not mean that people will not bully others.
Nor does he appear to have used the sun as his light source, which means that his ―conclusion‖ is based upon a flawed methodology. Since digital photography did not exist in 1963, it is also relatively effortless to state—with a high degree of confidence—that no digital tampering of the original photos took place. 33 So at the highest level of Farid‘s study, Fetzer justifiably calls Farid to task for having ―violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. It is impossible to demonstrate that a photo is not fake by selecting one issue, excluding consideration of the rest of the evidence, and showing that it would have been possible under special conditions.‖34 Simply put, Farid‘s distortion of data is the limitation of his digital reconstruction to just ―the head and neck, [and] not a full figure corresponding to the image,‖ along with his failure ―to have used the sun as his light source.‖35 And the illogic that is coupled with Farid‘s distortion of data? Farid has, as they say, ―stacked the deck.‖36 Now that we have covered the first three elements in our deconstruction, i.e., source, object, and (il)logical means, there remains just one for our consideration, intentionality.
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.
Aquinas' argument is an a posteriori argument as it is based on human observation or experience. Aquinas' argument is in favour of 'regularity of succession' - he basis his argument on the fact that things in nature follow certain laws that lead to certain results. For example, following the law of gravity, if we are to drop a glass and it hits the floor, the event that follows is that the glass will smash, this theory of natural laws are seen by philosophers as examples of regularities of succession - events follow scientific laws which are predictable, regular and unchanging. Aquinas' famous example given to explain his version of the teleological argument is one of an archer shooting an arrow. The arrow hits a target even though it does not have a mind of its own to direct in this way, the archer, who is someone with an intelligent mind shot the arrow - by itself the arrow can go nowhere as it does not have a mind of its own, it needs the archer to direct it in a specific direction, and this can be linked with the world and how everything in it, though it may not have a mind follows natural laws, therefore we come to the belief
However there is nothing we can do to turn back time but we as a country can make precautions to ensure that this day’s events won’t ever reoccur again. In many eyes of the general public 9/11 could’ve been prevented. There were signs and warnings from nearly everywhere within the government. But maybe our Government just couldn’t see a possibility that a country of our magnitude couldn’t be attacked in