Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
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 idea is that the world was created for a purpose and when things have a purpose something must to have caused it for a reason. In other words, where there is a design there is a designer. William Paley explained this argument with the watch theory. A person is walking on the beach, he looks on the ground and there he finds a watch. The complexity and intricate design of the watch shows that there must be purpose to that watch.
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.
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
Dennett, on the other hand, is a philosopher. He has questioned the prevailing Darwinism schools of thought, consciousness, free will and even the moral thought relative to religion within human life (Dennett, 1995, p. 38). Questioning the scientific traditions and reductionist thought that has extended from Aristotelian and the ways in which it has wrongly informed science and even delimited discoveries, Dennett (1995) addressed all of these shortcomings and their traditions through the scholarly traditions upon which they were founded. Lifting the veil of ignorance, Dennett acquainted his readers and colleagues with the historic environments and factors that coauthored the aforementioned traditions. Ultimately demonstrating the ways in which (Dennett, 1981) the Cartesian superficially created a false dichotomy and ultimately informed reductionist and essentialist traditions, Dennett (1995) articulated Darwin’s intentions and those of scientists and philosophers that followed (p
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.
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
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
Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the design argument for the existence of God The design argument is also known as the teleological argument, which comes from the Greek ‘Telos’, meaning end or purpose. It is a posteriori, so is made after something had been experienced. In this case it’s the experience of the universe and its apparent design, and it argues that if the universe has a specific design then it therefore must have a designer. There are many philosophers, both proponents who are for the argument and critics who are against it, and so there are strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Empirical evidence is a strength of the teleological argument.