Similarities Between Paley And David Hume

1273 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Compare and contrast realism and idealism

Jessica: Hello and welcome back to The Day Talk, the one and only show that brings you antiquated philosophers and other interesting persons! Now last week, our guest was the lovely Cormac McCarthy on idealism and realism. You could say that his views were pretty…BLACK AND WHITE.
(crickets)
Jessica: Okay….Moving on, this week we have two interesting faces to meet: David Hume and William Paley. They’ll be talking with us today about the Design Argument and why they’re for or against it. Gentlemen, please step on out.
(applause as the two men appear on stage left)
(men sit down in chairs opposite Jessica)
Jessica: Gentlemen, welcome. You’re both aware why we’re here. But before we begin, I have to ask you, Hume, a question.
Hume: By all means. …show more content…

“That a stone will fall, that a fire will burn…we have observed a thousand and a thousand times” (Hume 94). In other words, if you want to compare two things, by all means do so. But make sure the two items of such a comparison are actually able to be compared. Otherwise, you have an apple and orange: the only similarity between them is that they’re both fruit. Similarly, while a watch and a human both have complex design, that is the only commonality between them. See? There’s nothing more. So to say that because a watch has a creator, so must a human… the logic is …show more content…

Paley, you are a firm believer in God. You say that the Design Argument does work. From what I understand, you take it to be that anything that has some sort of design to it has to have had a maker (Paley 90). This is seen because humans are composed of so many things that to come from anything other than a deity, you believe, is ultimately impossible. You have the notion, Paley, that only God would be capable of making such an ultimate being that is the human. You assume in your argument, then, that God is an ultimate being; he has the ability to create a complex design (Paley 91).

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of The Argument From Design By William Paley

    673 Words  | 2 Pages

    The conclusion as stated before but more simplified is, nature has a design, and that the architect of this design is God himself. This is the purpose of the argument as a whole. His entire drive for this argument seemed to convince others that there is a higher being with a higher power. Paley attempted to convince and bring the ath...

    Read More

  • Analogical Teleological Argument

    1173 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, David Hume, succeeds in objecting this argument by claiming that the experience is a necessary factor for understanding the creation of the universe. Lastly, I argued that Paley’s argument was not sufficient for proving God’s existence with the argument by design because we cannot assume the world will comply and work the way we wish

    Read More

  • Why God Must Exist By Roger White Argument

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    Roger White presents an interesting argument for why God must exist. In his argument, White states that everything in the world is finely tuned to live its life accordingly. In order for this to be possible, God must have finely tuned all beings so that they were well fit for life. In depth, this argument is, “If a fact stands in need of an explanation, and a hypothesis explains this fact better than anything else, then they support each other. Our universe being so perfect for life is a fact in need of explanation. The hypothesis that God has finely tuned everything to be where all living beings can exist in this universe is an explanation to this fact. No other hypothesis compares to such a standard as this one. Therefore, the fact that our

    Read More

  • The Argument from Design, by William Paley

    1096 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and lastly, the supreme being is compared to the supreme being in Western Philosophy, God.

    Read More

  • Cleanthes

    1067 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume sets out the argument from design to prove that the universe is like a watch.

    Read More

  • Paleys Arguement From Design, And Humes Counter-analogy

    728 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hume’s counter-analogy does not succeed in undermining Paley’s argument from design. Paley clearly explains to his reader that humans are so complicated that we must have been made by a designer. Hume argues that since the universe is not a human art, and is more like an animal, it does not need a designer. Paley argues that the complexity and functionality of a watch clearly shows that it was made by a designer. Animals are also complex and functional, therefore, Hume does not change the argument adequately enough to effectively counter it.

    Read More

  • Paley's Argument From Design Argument

    1585 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Teleological argument, given by William Paley in 1802 states that there is a “Designing Creator”, and that everything in this world has been designed to fulfill some sort of function. He bases this argument using a traditional time piece, a watch, as an analogy. Paley states that the watch, unlike a stone or a rock, could not have been placed or created by accident, and that the existence of a watch is proof that there must be a watchmaker. He compares this watch to the existence of the universe, stating that the universe itself is proof that there is some sort of designer present, and like a watch (but unlike a rock or stone) could not have been created by accident. He then continues to state that further evidence of a God can be found in the supposed “regularity” of the universe. Paley claims that due to the universe behaving in a very apparent manner, while retaining boundaries (Newtons laws of motion, etc) that this is a very apparent display of a God having rule over a very mechanical universe. Now Darwin on the other hand was a large

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Paley's Argument For The Existence Of God

    704 Words  | 2 Pages

    The reason why the argument fails is because Paley put’s emphasis on giving things a single sole purpose. If things had multiple purposes from Paley’s point of view then it would be a lot more difficult to strike the argument down. This argument also shows the 3 point rule god. Paley has shown in this argument that god is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. The argument also gives a good argument as to how certain things must have intelligent design in order for it to be created. This is where I believe it mostly thrives. If we were to look at another argument like The Ontological Argument it states that the greatest thing that we can conceive exists in the mind, but it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind, but if nothing greater than god can be conceived in the mind then god must exist in reality. This argument can easily be torn apart if someone just believes that god is not the greatest thing that can be conceived. It also does not prove god’s existence throughout the world physically, but with the mind. Where as Paley’s argument shows god through the “creations” he has created and explaining how god is the

    Read More

  • David Hume: Compatibilism And Hume

    1937 Words  | 4 Pages

    Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.

    Read More

  • David Hume and Future Occurrences

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume demonstrates how there is no way to rationally make any claims about future occurrences. According to Hume knowledge of matters of fact come from previous experience. From building on this rationale, Hume goes on to prove how, as humans we can only make inferences on what will happen in the future, based on our experiences of the past. But he points out that we are incorrect to believe that we are justified in using our experience of the past as a means of evidence of what will happen in the future. Since we have only experience of the past, we can only offer propositions of the future. Hume classifies human into two categories; “Relations of Ideas,” and “Matters of Fact.” (240) “Relations of ideas” are either intuitively or demonstratively certain, such as in Mathematics (240). It can be affirmed that 2 + 2 equals 4, according to Hume’s “relations of ideas.” “Matters of fact” on the other hand are not ascertained in the same manner as “Relations of Ideas.” The ideas that are directly caused by impressions are called "matters of fact". With “matters of fact,” there is no certainty in establishing evidence of truth since every contradiction is possible. Hume uses the example of the sun rising in the future to demonstrate how as humans, we are unjustified in making predictions of the future based on past occurrences. As humans, we tend to use the principle of induction to predict what will occur in the future. Out of habit, we assume that sun will rise every day, like it has done in the past, but we have no basis of actual truth to make this justification. By claiming that the sun will rise tomorrow according to Hume is not false, nor is it true. Hume illustrates that “the contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality” (240). Just because the sun has risen in the past does not serve as evidence for the future. Thus, according to Hume, we are only accurate in saying that there is a fifty- percent chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Hume felt that all reasoning concerning matter of fact seemed to be founded on the relation between cause and effect.

    Read More

  • The Universe: The Design Argument by William Paley

    1139 Words  | 3 Pages

    William Paley develops his view of the design argument through an example of a wristwatch. He has the reader imagine themselves coming across a watch on the ground. He then asks the reader how they think the watch came to be there or came to exist in the first place. Looking at the watch, Paley says that one will notice the intricate design of the watch and notice that all the parts were put together in such a way to serve a purpose, namely, to tell time. Paley believes that from looking at the watch we will be lead to think that the watch has a clever designer. The watch displays a certain evidence of its own design.

    Read More

  • The Teleological Argument

    1384 Words  | 3 Pages

    He says design requires a designer, the works of nature also requires a designer and that designer is God. From this Paley creates his four arguments for God’s existence from analogies, which are argument from design is based on experience, argument from design assumes that we are different in kind, but same in degree, argument from design argues from mind/thought to design, and argument from design assumes that all things are created by matter.... ... middle of paper ... ...

    Read More

  • David Hume And Spinoza

    1816 Words  | 4 Pages

    David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design

    Read More

  • A Comparison Of Aristotle And David Hume

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.

    Read More

  • Comparing The Existence Of God By David Hume And Karl Marx

    1272 Words  | 3 Pages

    Fist we must understand what the design argument is based on? It is based on intelligent order simply the theory claiming the universe is designed in order to prove that it is the work of a designer in this case God. Scriptures try to tie itself with the design argument for example “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-21). This in essence is saying God exist through his creations even if man doesn’t see it. Hume’s however does not agree with the scripture, his argument is simple, how can someone argue God exist if he or she were not present to witness the creation. He uses the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge for example; "George Bush Jr. reigned from 2001 to 2009." This is something (if true) that one must come to know a posterior, because it expresses an empirical fact unknowable without prior knowledge. By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George Bush reigned at all, then he reigned for at least a day." This is something th...

    Read More

More about Similarities Between Paley And David Hume

Open Document