The basic idea behind this metaphor is that if you came across a watch on a path and observed the intricate way that that different parts work together, you would assume that it was created by a watchmaker. Paley then goes on to argue that it would not matter if we could not see or know the watchmaker. It also would not matter of we could not comprehend how the watch was made, it is still clear that it was designed. Next, he states that how well the watch works does not matter either, as long as the purpose of the machinery
However, one specific explanation stands above all others. One can then look at all possible explanations and infer that the best possible one is that is most likely to be true. White uses inference to the best explanation by jumping to the conclusion that God is the one who must have finely tuned all beings for life. This is because there are many possibilities for an explanation of why beings exist the way they do. For example, one could easily look at this situation and come to the conclusion that this is just the way it is and beings exist this way independently.
If designs entail a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. An intelligent designer is an entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the development of life. Essentially, the claim being made is that certain aspects of the universe are too perfectly arranged to have not happened because of a supernatural being called God. The Intelligent Design argument is the most recent formulation of the teleological argument. “Proponents point out that although we cannot know that something has not been designed, we can detect design in systems whose functions are irreducibly complex” (Peterson 108).
He states that he knows that to be the case beyond any doubt, and that this is the first principle of the philosophy he is seeking. From that single observation he deduces a rule that he will build his entire argument upon. Descartes notices that the idea of his existence is very clear and distinct in his mind; based upon this clarity, and the fact that he has just determined his own e... ... middle of paper ... ...t would have to necessarily exist. It is difficult to understand because just as we can think of a God, we can think of a being so absolutely imperfect that it does not exist, since existence is perfection. But since it has an objective reality, according to Descartes, it must have a formal reality, what is almost impossible.
We must examine the relationship between the two, in hopes of discovering the similarity and difference between the human and divine intellect. Some might argue that these immaterial species of things must have already been present for the human mind to abstract them from the environment. That human’s cannot create but merely interpret their environment. This statement is both true and untrue. It is true, in so far as Go... ... middle of paper ... ...hing man can know completely in the immaterial world by virtue of being its creator, and thus too, the immaterial is all he or she may rule.
To describe actions of creation such as the big bang theory, or evolution, Kaufman would argue that, as science, good things, or an outcome of something good, was an act of God, while also saying that the action was God Himself. This brought the view that everything must have a value attached to it, naming it good or bad. This is the beginning of meekness, equability, and mindfulness, contributing to the formation of natural
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.
A thing cannot move towards its end without an intelligent being directing the thing to its end. The intelligent being that moves all natural things toward their end is God. Therefore, things that lack intelligence do not obtain their end or purpose by random chance, but by God. In other words, things have order or regularity. Aquinas says that “this is clear from the fact that they always, or usually act in the same way so as to achieve what is best” (Aquinas 26).
There is always an order. Just as Paley described, the correspondence with the designer of a watch and designer of the world are the same. In the process of creating a watch one’s intentions isn’t to make imperfections, it sometimes breaks, or runs slow, but the order and complexity still suggests design. I would negate this skeptic idea with the thought process that God had a plan when he crafted our system. The defense is found in understanding that our ideals differ from His.
Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being. Descartes affirms that he is certain that he is a thinking thing. His reasoning, however, seems to be a circular argument.