A teleological or design argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology. Some philosophers, such as Plato, proposed a divine Artificer as the designer; others, including Aristotle, rejected that conclusion in favor of a more naturalistic teleology.
Aquinas then goes on to give examples about how an arrow reaches a target but its directed by an archer(the intelligence) , which makes the arrow reach it goal, though it lacks intelligence. To sum up Aquinas’s argument some intelligent being exists by all natural things that are directed to an end; that being is God. In my opinion I disagree with Aquinas on the argument from design. Thomas mixes the laws of nature with prescribed laws made of intelligent beings. The laws of nature have been discovered , an accepted law is imposed.
But this contradicts the definition of God. Therefore, we must posit that God exists.” (p. 5). Despite the many debates Anselm’s theory created over the meaning of “greater” and “being”, Crutcher (2010) argues that Anselm’s theory fails “as an argument against non-theists because its premises can be freely doubted.” (p. 5). If one doubts that God exists, they will also doubt the qualities predicated to God. “The conclusion
God has a very broad meaning and the meaning varies from person to person. Therefore, shutting down the theories of God’s existence outright would not be fair to people who look for God as a purpose to live for. One of the most prominent theologians in history is Thomas Aquinas, who developed the “five proofs” theory to prove that God exists. Most of his proofs consist of the main idea that everything that exists in the universe has some sort of origin. This origin, in Aquinas’ eyes, is God.
The main argument, and the strongest in my opinion, is the Paradox of Omnipotence. The paradox poses the question: can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? One of the answers referring to this question has to do with causal law. The argument that good and evil must exist as opposites presupposes that God cannot create good without having to create evil. This means that God must not be omnipotent because “he” is bound by logical necessities and there are some limits to what God can do.
Every living thing on this earth must have a cause, God is said to be an uncaused cause (which means nothing caused God, but God caused everything), but many say that God is existing and if this is possibly valid he must have to exist. However, if he does have a cause he can’t be God. So in reality God cannot possibly exist, He may not attribute both divine and human like traits. Hume’s argument mentioned above, relates to his
Second, he asks the following question, if God created evil and goodness, why can he simply make evil disappear? In a conclusion taken from the Euthyphro dilemma, this question demonstrates a limitation in God’s power, which is indicating a mayor flaw in the Divine Command Theory. Because the Divine Command Theory is based on faith, Mortimer, the main proponent of this theory, could find difficult to respond to John Arthur’s arguments. In other words, faith does not have a scientific explanation which makes it hard to be understood by some individuals. But one of Mortimer’s strongest arguments could be that the DCT is the only theory that explains and distinguishes between right and wrong in a simple and clear
In this paper I will examine and evaluate Cleanthes’s argument from design to the existence of God. I argue that although I begin by examine Cleathes’s argument from design to the existence of God. Cleanthes, a character introduced by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, tries to argue that the Universe was created by a designer, presumably God. According to Dan’s analysis at discussion, Cleanthes’s argument takes the following form: “ Premise 1 – The Universe resembles an artifact because: i) It shows a high level of complexity and ii) It has degree of apparently purposive organization Premise 2 – Artifacts are created by designers. Therefore, the Universe was created by a designer.
He doesn’t believe in a moral definition of what is good and bad; because historically it is contradicted by the men of power. Within these two different approaches I believe that Aquinas’ God and Nietzsche’s will of power in human affairs essentially becomes the morality by which we come to understand morality. Aquinas first claims that God’s existence is not itself, self-evident because we do not know the essence of God (Aquinas 3). Instead, he states we can prove Gods’ existence through the things that are in themselves already self-evident to us. Aquinas provides five predicates for God as the Immovable motor of all movement, the uncaused Cause of all causes and effects, the necessary and supremely perfect being from which all beings relate, and supreme Intelligence which governs the actions of all beings (Aquinas 4-6).
However, in the case that he lacked omnibenevolence, evil would still cast a dark shadow in the world because perhaps God does not desire to relieve it. In actuality, God can be all three, and evil can and does exist. This is true because God is not responsible for the evil in the world. Evil blemishes the world wherever the world is lacking in goodness. If evil did not taint the world, the world would lack good and freewill, too.