(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.
In the same way our world is too complex because of the way that things just fit together for their purpose to have just come about as a matter of chance. Paley used the idea of the human eye and the way that it is adapted for sight as an example. The different parts of the eye work together to produce sight. The complex design indicates that there must be an intelligent designer. Richard Dawkins in his book the blind watchmaker however argues that this cannot be the case as there are so many faults in the world that it could not have been planned and that things came about through natural selection, the “blind, unconscious, automatic process" which explains the existence and purposeful form of all life.
According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect. Moreover, he believed that the notion of God represents something so ideal that he could not have been the cause of this idea. I believe that Descartes arguments are not really such convincing because of the following reasons which I would like to point out. We may all come to this point and consider that we all exist; however, it’s not completely true because Descartes had an idea of the perfect being in his mind, but I surely don't have such an idea. Now what am I to believe?
Therefore, the Universe was created by a designer. Basically, Cleanthes’s tries to argue that because the Universe possess two qualities that resembles an artifact, and since all artifacts have designers, the Universe probably also have its designer. It should be noted that Cleanthes only argues for the possible existence of such a designer given premises one and two. Also Cleanthes’s argument is not said to be “deductively valid” (Holden, Hume on the argument from design, p-4) since given both premises to be true do not guarantee the validity of the conclusion that Universe was created by a designer. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is only to evaluate with debate between Cleanthes and his opponent, instead of trying to prove the validity of the argument from design.
Paley believed that no one else would have been intelligent enough to create the order and complexity of the universe. Aquinas also argues the point that the order and purpose of the world proves that there must be a designer behind it. He believed that God was the answer to the unexplainable and that all natural bodies act for an end. An example for
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).
Aquinas’ version was arguing from design qua regularity. He believed the world has to be designed because of the overall order of the universe that couldn’t have come about by itself or by chance, so therefore an intelligent being must have set in place, and the being must be God. In contrast, Paley believes someone designed the world because everything
Claiming that one should recognize it as the work of a designer, even if someone has never seen a watch, “the various parts and their composition, together with a recognizable function, would inevitably lead us to believe that it was not merely a randomly formed entity. Nor should we doubt that the watch is the product of intelligent design even if another watch produced it; for we should merely conclude
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. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. Life or objects are described as ‘orderly’ or ‘ordered,’ which implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there are examples of systems that are not made out of random neither ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, an example of this may be complex things such as diamonds or snowflakes. The design claim is often challenged as an argument from ignorance, since it is often unexplained or unsupported. Supporters of design assume that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed.