As Paley explains, just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watchmaker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker. I will examine the argument presented by William Paley, in which he offers an argument from design that claims to show a clear reason why one should believe in God, due to the natural features of the world. I disagree with Paley in that there are many flaws to his argument. In my opinion Paley's argument is a deductive argument, in the sense that he first establishes a belief and uses it in order to reach his final conclusion, hence a deductive argument in which Paley’s premises might be somewhat true but his conclusion is false. .
J. Ayer claimed that to speak of a designed universe is meaningless. Unless we could say what the world would have been like without a designer, we cannot reach the conclusion that this world is designed. Who establishes that there is beneficial order in the universe? How do we argue from that to the conclusion that god has designed it? Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation.
He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists. Anselm believes in a concept called in re and in intellectu, this involves the idea that if something is in the mind then it will always be greater in reality, for example money or a painting. Anselm applies a method of reasoning called reductio ad absurdum to prove Gods existence and make other possibilities seem ridiculous. Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a contemporary of Anselm, proposed an objection to Anselm’s argument in his work ‘On behalf of the Fool’. Gaunilo argues that just because someone can conceive of something it does not make it a reality and that there is not one way to conceive of God - the very fact that Gaunilo was arguing with Anselm proves that everyone coneives of God differently.
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).
Inclination essentially relinquishes scholarly objectivity. McCloskey contended that the cosmological argument was an argument from the presence of the world, as people know it. He expressed that having faith in an uncaused first cause for the universe is an issue in light of the fact that nothing about our universe powers us to that conclusion. The reason impact defense comprehends a connection between things that are in existence and will come
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’.
If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not. Humans are flawed in many ways including the fact that we have extra organs, and that our skeletons are not created properly for the way we walk. Humans are not machines in any way, and the fact that we are not perfect machines is explained by the theory of evolution. Therefore the theory of evolution is proof against the teleological argument and that God is the creator of the human race and the earth. I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God.
You would not assume that it was made due to random changes in nature; you would think that the watch had a designer. Because it has a purpose (to tell the time) it must have a designer. As the universe also has signs of complexity and intelligence, it too must have a designer? The watch is an unintelligent being in the case, with the designer being the intelligence. If we use analogy to compare the watch to the universe then there must be some intelligent being which directs all unintelligent beings towards their end.
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.
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.