William Paley was a strong supporter of the teleological argument, or the argument for the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe, and particularly God. Through analogies, like the watch and the watchmaker, he creates a case for the existence of God. In this paper, I argue that Paley’s inductive argument for the necessity of a divine designer is flawed and does not prove the existence of universal designer. His case contains several faults that I object with, including natural selection, the fallacy of composition, and the use of a weak analogy. With theses particular objections I will show that Paley’s argument is no longer effective as it used to be, and is in need of improvements. Paley begins his argument with the idea of coming across a stone in a field and coming across a watch, stating that when coming across a watch you would assume that it …show more content…
There have been significant shifts in scientific discovery since the late 1700s and Paley’s intelligently designed machine argument. Fossils have been uncovered displaying that life on earth has a history. Geology and paleontology have developed a relatively specific age of the earth, and plate tectonics have created separate developmental histories. Darwin showed that organisms evolve and adapt to different environmental conditions. Using the evolution of the flower Marsh Epipactus, it has been shown that nature is not perfect. The flowers were originally self-pollinated which created weak genes and a small population; however, they have evolved to be more successful in their reproduction by preventing self-pollination and encouraging cross-pollination (Gould, pp. 24-26). Many philosophers, including Paley, once believed that what people saw in nature at the time is what people would have seen in the past, and what people would see in the future; however, life on earth has a history that continuously
Paley was talking about the universe, with the watch as a metaphor. The universe is obviously much more complex than a watch and they both serve
The ability to compare the universe to a watch allows for familiarity, which is what I believe draws agreement and acknowledgement of his argument. It is thought that, as humans, we have at least one person in existence that is aware of how to put together a properly functioning watch, and we know that a watch needs to be put together intelligently. Given Paley’s reasoning he presents that the world is also intricately made which creates a parallel between a watch in the universe, giving individuals a sense of familiarity. As such, it naturally follows that there ought to be a universe maker, or God, who appears to be the only one capable of doing such a thing. Primarily, my concern is that the intelligent maker must be God; Paley merely assumes that the reader agrees and gives no further insight on why the creator must be God. Furthermore, he assumes the universe works without proof or any real knowledge which seems a rather fatal flaw. It is irresponsible to believe that the universe works the way we assume to fulfill our desire to explain the existence of God, similar to Mackie’s objection to the cosmological argument (Mackie 171). I do not believe Paley’s argument survives Hume’s objection due to the necessity of experience. He merely uses analogy to justify his claim; the only difference is that he has experience with a watch and none in regards to the universe. Again, he is
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
The teleological argument begins by stating a special kind of argument, an a posteriori argument. An a posteriori argument is an argument based on the knowledge of experiences encountered in the world. For Paley, the a posteriori argument is established as he imagines himself nature walking, only to stumble upon a watch: a pocket watch, whose function is made visible through a transparent glass and made possible through gears and springs. Paley retrieves the watch and questions how such an object came to be in the middle of vegetation and is easily intrigued to reflect about the nature of the watch. Let us reflect about the physical attributes of the watch. Imagine for a second that the body of the watch was covered in highly polished gold metal and in the middle of its body laid a transparent glass. The glass lets us see two disproportionate metallic rods whose ends are encrusted with small diamonds. Apart from ...
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.
Evil exists. No philosopher (and typically no other human) denies this. As well, any God that may or may not exist is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Omnipotent being “all powerful” and omnibenevolent being “all good.” If He is not, then he probably would not have earned the status of “God.” So one who believes in God typically willingly admits that God obtains both of these qualities. So how could all three of these facts possibly be so at the same time. In other words, how can someone who has the power to do whatever He wants, who is also incapable of doing bad, allow evil to happen. How could He either create evil or stand by as evil happens, without interfering? The argument then goes, for
He had two different approaches to how the universe was created. Paley compared a watched the way the universe, he thought the world was like a machine it must have a des... ... middle of paper ... ... nthropic Principle’ believed that ‘Nature produces living beings but with fine tuning that is found in the universe; life could just as easily not developed into earth’ I think that this quote is trying to say that the universe has been developed by evolution and was created by God, a designer.
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
Humans have asked questions about their origin and their purpose on earth for eons. The Bible tells humans that God created them and explains their purpose. However, since the Renaissance, humanism answers questions about origins by naturalistic means and science has been redefined in the process. Most institutions of higher education and many individuals have adopted the naturalistic theory of evolution to explain human origin without considering its effects on faith. In contrast to prevailing thought at Goshen College, a literal six-day creation is foundational to the Gospel message. Combining evolution and Christianity makes one’s faith less logical and opens one’s science to new quandaries.
Many of us know that a watch indeed does have a designer, but what if we had never seen a watch made before or known of anyone capable of such design? Lacking this knowledge, Paley argues, should raise no doubt in our mind that the object must have a designer. Even if the watch told the wrong time most of the time, Paley says that the intended purpose of the watch to tell time is still obvious. Paley says we should still conclude that the watch ...
Paley’s analogy came about from the concept of a stone. He encountered this stone during his walk and wondered how it came about (Paley, 1802, 196). He applies the idea that since a designer must have created this stone, this designer must have created other things just like how a watch is created by a watchmaker. His analogy for a watch and its watch maker becomes his key argument because he argues that you cannot come to a conclusion that a stone was formed by a natural process, just like how when you look at a watch it has a watchmaker (Paley, 1802, 96). When comparing it to a stone, Paley says someone must have created it.
Many scientists in the past, such as Aristotle and Plato, believed that there were no changes in populations; however, other scientists, such as Darwin and Wallace, arose and argued that species inherit heritable traits from common ancestors and environmental forces drives out certain heritable traits that makes the species better suited to survive or be more “fit” for that environment. Therefore, species do change over a period of time and they were able to support their theory by showing that evolution does occur. There were four basic mechanisms of evolution in their theory: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable traits that makes it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce increases, whereas there is a decline in those who do have those beneficial heritable traits (Natural Selection). For example, there is a decrease in rain which causes a drought in the finches’ environment. The seeds in the finches’ environment would not be soft enough for the smaller and weaker beak finches to break; therefore, they cannot compete with the larger and stronger beak finches for food. The larger and stronger beak finches has a heritable trait that helps them survive and reproduce better than others for that particular environment which makes them categorized under natural selection (Freeman, 2002).
To begin with, Paley’s watchmaker argument contains a major Fallacy of composition. Paley explains: “Every indicator of contrivance … which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature”.6 This statement infers that like a watch, nature exhibits the same complexity and perceived purpose, and therefore, like a watch, must require a designer. This statement is completely invalid as it assumes because the individual parts of a watch are made for a purpose and are complex, so to must the parts of the universe, and therefore the universe has a creator, which is extremely irrational.
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.