William Paley argued for the existence of God by reasoning that the world shows such complex structure that it must have been designed. He used analogy to compare the universe to a man made structure such as a watch. He argues that if we were to find a watch on the ground, we would naturally infer that it had not come into being by chance; rather that it had been designed for a purpose. He also argues that regularity in the universe also shows that the world must have been designed – Newton’s laws of motion and gravity alone show there is design in the universe that did not come about by chance.
Paley’s argument has both its strengths and its weaknesses. The argument itself is a posteriori and inductive meaning that everyone can understand and relate to it and it is easy to understand. It appears to be a logical argument – most people would agree that if they were to come across a watch they would assume it had a designer. It is therefore easy to follow the argument and agree with its conclusion – that there is a God. By using the analogy of a watch, we can see more clearly the point that is being made; that as like effects have like causes, it is reasonable to assume that an intricately designed object such as a watch has a designer, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that our intricately designed universe has a designer.
However the fact that the argument uses analogy can also be seen as a weakness. David Hume criticised Paley’s argument because he believed it was illogical to liken the universe to a vast man made machine. He believed the universe would be more believably likened to a vegetable or inert animal – something growing of its own accord rather than something made by hand. Hume believed that analogies were a poor way of arguing for the existence of God because they leave so much room for argument – for example, the watch that we assume has a designer could have in fact been designed by ten different people, and therefore we can say the same about the universe.
The Term Paper on An Argument That Man Is Made In The Image Of God
I.Introduction In this paper, I seek to prove that Man is made in the image of God philosophically, given that God is the creator of the universe and that there are no other created beings in the universe other than those found on earth. I shall do this by proving that God displays and has certain noble and noteworthy features, and show how Man is unique in all creation in that we exemplify and ...
I find that using the analogy of a watch makes little sense to me when it comes to proving the existence of God. I do agree that were I to come across a watch I would assume it had a designer – but that is because I have prior experience of objects such as watches and I know that they are designed for a purpose. Where as I have no prior experience of universes, how they come into being and whether or not they are designed and therefore I would be unwilling to assume that the universe has a designer or a God. It is difficult to compare design in the universe to the design of the universe. I agree with David Hume when he states that it is illogical to liken the universe to a watch to conduct an argument, because the universe and watches are lacking in enough similarities to convince me.
The second part of William Paley’s argument is design qua regularity. For some people this argument is a very strong one as it has some scientific support. There are definite mathematical laws governing our universe, and evidence from astronomy and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity proves that there is design in our universe which hasn’t come about by chance. So the argument is compatible with science- it allows for events such as the Big Bang as a designer could have achieved them. The argument gives the laws and events proven by science deeper meaning and understanding to many people.
However personally I find this strength unconvincing because I find the inductive leap from ‘there are mathematical laws in our universe’ to ‘therefore the universe must have been designed by God’ leaves the argument unpersuasive. I do agree that it is difficult to believe that the strict scientific laws in our universe came about by chance and entirely randomly. Even so, I do not believe that the concept of God having created and designed the universe is a satisfactory explanation because it leaves so many questions unanswered; for example, why did God create our Universe? How can we be sure it was only the one God and not many? I think these questions are important weaknesses in William Paley’s argument because the argument does not answer them.
The Essay on Ontological Argument for God’s existence
To asses the strengths of the Ontological Argument for Gods existence, we firstly need to understand what it entails. The Ontological Argument looks at proof ‘A Priori’, which is Analytical truth, reason based proof. This can be explained by saying 1+1=2. We know this to be true, as it is based on reasoning, and is a logical statement. This can be seen as a strength of the Ontological ...
I therefore would have to conclude that I find William Paley’s design argument to be unconvincing and unsuccessful. There are points of it I agree with – and I do see how the complexities of our universe could lead to the conclusion that is designed. Even so, the argument remains unsuccessful to me because of the inductive leaps and unanswered questions that arise from it.
