Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God. The ontological argument believes that God is a “being”. The cosmological argument believes that God is “the universe”. Then there is the design argument which needs evidence to prove that there is a God. The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist.
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. .
An Examination of the Teleological Argument Its Criticisms and Its Evolution into Modern Times Jonathan Margulis PHIL100 0204 One of the most important questions argued over the ages by philosophers is of the existence of G-d. Nothing is so critical to human history than G-d and religion. This argument has seen bloodshed and death, while man argues with each other about the existence of a superior being that controls the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent G-d. There have been many proponents who argue that G-d exists. Notable philosophers include, Saint Anslem and William Paley, who both argued the existence of G-d. Saint Anslem in his Ontological Argument writes several reasons for the existence.
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.
God Proofs To what extent does Anselm’s Ontological argument prove the existence of God? One of the great philosophical debates concerns the existence of God. God, by scientific standards, can never be proven to exist. He is, in all sense of the word, larger than life. However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it.
William Paley developed these ideas with his version of the watch maker analogy. He argued that in the same way a watch's complexity implies the existence of its maker, so too one may infer the Creator of the universe exists, given the evident complexity of Nature. This argument resonates with a notion of the fine-tuned Universe, understood as an alternative to the anthropic principle. There have been numerous criticisms of the different versions of the teleological argument. Commonly, critics argue that any implied designer need not have the qualities commonly attributed to the God of classical theism.
He also has some strong opinion on the solutions that the theists have on the resolution to the problem of evil. He states that "If we use the cosmological argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause." He also states that theists come up with what he believes is "unintelligent" instances of how we find reasons to believe in God and how he can exist in a world that has evil involved in people's lives. These instances of how evil can exist while GOd can to at the same time include, being punishment for people's wrongs or the consequence of having free will. But here I would like to put in my own opinion much like McCloskey has throughout his article.
She elaborates on the issue of spraying chemicals and if it is increasing or decreasing the progress in the world. Carson’s article states that we are hurting ourselves more than we benefit ourselves from the spraying of harmful chemicals, and that we endanger our environment with these chemicals. In order to persuade the progressive intellectuals of this argument, Carson provides data to show the actual harm the pollution from the chemicals is causing, and provokes fear in her audience. In order to make her argument appear reasonable, Rachel Carson uses scientific observation to demonstrate how chemicals are the cause of killing pests. Carson provides rational examples to show the harm that pollution is causing to the earth and pests.
One of these is it has been significantly more of a challenge to demonstrate that God is not possible. An example of this would be that God is said to have extraordinary power which is omnipotence, but however can God create a triangle with 4 sides, or can he make a round square? This is raising the question of is can God ‘simply’ defy basic rules of logic… The theist under this explanation of God would reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent therefore this theist could respond by claiming that God simply cannot do what is logically
Outline the key idea’s of the Cosmological argument. The cosmological argument is an argument of which hypothesises the existence of the world, or universe we live in is powerful evidence for the existence of a God whom of which fashioned it. The argument claims the only adequate explanation of the universe is that it was created by god. Like most of the arguments for the existence of God, the cosmological argument which is spread and exists within several forms, two are the temporal cosmological argument, which highlights and discusses the first cause argument, also the modal argument from contingency argument, the main difference in ideas being the way in which they choose to disregard the initial objection to the argument, they end it commonly with a question, for example ‘does god have a cause of his existence?’ The cosmological argument was identified and studied by Thomas Aquinas, William Craig, Liebniz and many other scholars. The argument itself is leads down an inductive route and in itself tries to prove the existence of god, being through experience and though evidence of the existence of the universe, therefore enabling the ability for the argument to be a posteriori one; a posteriori argument starts from experience of the universe and argues by the induction back to god.