Richard Swinburne's Teleological Argument
Although explicated on many occasions and by many different authors, the teleological argument for the existence of God provides the best springboard from which to launch contemporary convictions of faith. In the revised edition of his earlier The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne constructs a solid outline that reveals the exact structure of the teleological argument. He presents both forms of the teleological argument , holds each under the light of skeptical review and then provides insight and defense that allows for careful philosophical review.
Swinburne begins his outline of the teleological argument by identifying its two forms: 'regularities of co-presence' and 'regularities of succession.' Regularities of co-presence, according to Swinburne, might be "a town with all its roads at right angles to each other, or a section of books in a library arranged in alphabetical order of authors;" Regularities of succession are "simple patterns of behavior of objects, such as their behavior in accordance with the laws of nature -- for example, Newton's laws."
The distinction between regularities of co-presence and regularities of succession becomes pivotal in the ultimate dissection of this argument. The version identified by regularities of co-presence lends itself well to the defense of theism; unfortunately, it also lends itself well to total dismantlement. This particular version of the argument being the one studied almost exclusively by eighteenth century thinkers follows a very natural and uncomplicated path.
Swinburne demonstrates the natural and uncomplicated path by suggesting that "animals and plants have the power to reproduce their kind, and so, given the past...
... middle of paper ...
...hs. Swinburne concedes this version is vulnerable to attack from those who claim "that although the order of the universe is an objective matter, nevertheless, unless the universe were an orderly place, men would not be around to comment on the fact… Hence there is nothing surprising in the fact that men find order -- they could not possibly find anything else."
Although the teleological argument has a strong version (regularities of succession), it will continue to receive skeptical review because it cannot build the complete bridge to the throne of God. In fact, no theory can. At some point in time, there must be a leap of faith. Theists make their leap in one direction, atheists in another. The question is not one of the leap itself, but which bridge appears closer. Swinburne has advanced the bridge of theism with his regularities of succession.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
The. The “Challenging Darwin”. Bioscience. 2(2005). The 'Secondary' of the 'S 101, eLibrary.
Within William Rowe’s Chapter two of “The Cosmological Argument”, Rowe reconstructs Samuel Clark's Cosmological Argument by making explicit the way in which the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or PSR, operates in the argument as well as providing contradictions of two important criticisms from Rowe’s argument.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Gould continues his base argument on NOMA by comparing religion against science and some of the past disputes between the two subjects. He compares the ideas of an absent clock-winder, to that of one that is ever-present to press it upon the hour to make it chime, which alludes to a later argument of intelligent design versus natural development. (Pg. 49-95) After the clock-makers discussion, Gould discusses two of the largest figures in evolutionary biology, Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley, and a liberal clergyman, Charles Kingsley. Gould talks about the correspondence between Huxley and Kingsley, where Kingsley reaches out to his skeptical friend Huxley with faith and Huxley retorts in turn with natural science against religion. Huxley thanks Kingsley for his condolences, but argues against immortality for humans but not for the rest of the natural world, when humans are but an insignificant speck in the whole of the natural world. Hu...
Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Second Edition ; ed. by Philip Appleman; copyright 1979, 1970 by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
The theory of social darwinism was first introduced to the public[1] in “A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility”, an article by Herbert Spencer published in 1852. This work preceded the publishing of Darwin’s book by seven years, and “given the timing, it is curious that Darwin’s theory was not labeled ‘natural Spencerism’ instead of Spencer’s theory being labeled ‘social Darwinism.’”[2] Spencer’s article, though mainly focused on biology and the ways in which animal populations develop, does include an inkling of the social ideas he would later more fully examine. His main theory of population deals with survival of the fittest, a phrase he coins in this a...
Each section of this article will be explained in my own words, with the exception of some of the symbolic logic. Russell's own words are indicated by speech marks.
The teleological argument says a complex world such as ours could not exist without having an original designer such as God. Since this world is in existence, there must be a God. Pascal’s wager suggests that as humans we do not have the mental capacity to understand the existence of God and so believing in God is our safest bet. These arguments are also both referencing a specific God.
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
A Critique of the Telelogical Argument, 1779, David Hume. 199-205. The. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2008. Pojman, Louis P., and Fieser, James. Introduction to Philosophy - Classic and Contemporary Readings Fourth Edition.
The teleological. The first three ‘ways’ are different variations of the cosmological. argument. The syll The Cosmological argument is developed around a distinction between that which has a necessary existence and that, which is contingent. A thing that has necessary existence must exist in all possible worlds.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience.