The Inadequacy of Paley's Argument from Design

The Inadequacy of the Argument from Design

William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.

The Teleological argument attempts to prove that a god designed the universe. Consider that a person comes across a watch in a field. The field is filled with various natural forms of vegetation. In contrast with the various natural constructs (like stones, trees, and bushes) the watch is seemingly out of place. The person has no idea how it got there, although it is evident that the watch was created for telling time. This scenario is reliant on eight tenants proposed by William Paley. The person has never seen, nor has any idea, regarding how a watch is made. The watch is assumed to sometimes be built incorrectly and malfunction. The function of some of the watch’s parts is unknown. Of many potential forms the watch could inhabit, this is only one. An overarching principle or plan was used to construct the watch. Finally, it is irrelevant whether we know nothing about design on...

... middle of paper ...

...nning millennia. At some point, a single force may have been responsible for the chain reaction that resulted in the existence of eroded rock. However, this still fails to point towards a god or conscious creator.

After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question. Ultimately, the teleological argument is an inadequate and dated explanation for the creation of the universe.