More handpicked essays just for you.
The design argument william paley
William paley classical form of the design argument
William paley classical form of the design argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Justine Clarke | Philosophy of Religion | Professor McKelligan
Consider two objects, one a stone and the other a watch. According to evangelical apologist William Paley, these two objects vary, The stone is simply a stone object, but the watch allows us to ascertain the existence of a creator. This paper will address Paley’s notion that complex indicate design that serves a purpose is evidence to the to the existence of an intelligent creator. This argument is also known as the “Design Argument” and was heavily acclaimed by the Stoics; a group of philosophers known for making their beliefs a way of life. I intend to argue against Paley’s fourth argument addressing the impossibility of chance.
Paley’s argument utilizes about eight points
…show more content…
The design of the watch or object in other cases do not have to be perfect for it to show that there is intricate design involved.
Parts that appear to have no purpose do not invalidate the fact that it is designed, as we do not need to be aware of the purpose of every part of the object.
Objects like the watch are not possible by simply chance.
The object cannot be made from a “principle of order” because we do not even hold a complete notion of what something created from such.
We see the object as contrived because of our mind.
Objects cannot come about as a result of the laws of metallic nature. because the existence of laws speaks to that of an agent, which it appears would be considered God. If we only know a little about the object, we should not immediately distrust what we do not know of
…show more content…
Multiple philosophers have spoken to the fact that our senses are not to be trusted for knowledge. These strongly held beliefs led to the creation of groups of philosophers known as skeptics. Paley’s presupposition that the reader will agree that “anyone in their senses” is a suitable enough response to defend the argument of chance detracts from his overall argument. Paley’s response would probably be to stress the notion of intricate design coming out of nothing and the perceived impossibility of this notion. Nonetheless, Paley’s response fails to sway me in favor of his fourth argument and instead leads to me questioning the integrity of a few
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.
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.
When it comes to choosing an argument for the existence of god I believe that Paley’s argument of creation and design is the best for proving that god does exist. In his argument Paley is suggesting that if we were to look at the world around us, we could easily come to the conclusion that it was not created by pure chance but, by a creator (a designer). Paley uses a watch and a rock in order to explain his argument. He mentions how if there was a watch on the floor and we have never seen it before, we would easily come to the conclusion that the watch could not have been made by pure chance but, some kind of intelligent design was put into it. He argues that when we look at the rock we do not so easily see the design, but it does not mean
Sense Perception is a way of knowing in which a person can acquire knowledge using their five senses - taste, touch, sight, sound and smell. Sense perception is an important in our understanding of the world, and is a source of much of the pleasure in our lives. But, can we trust our senses to give us the truth? This may come out as an odd question to many because according to experience and history it is known that humans greatly rely on sense perception as a means of survival. However, like all ways of knowing, sense perception has its weakness; our senses can easily be deceived. In his TED Talk, “Are we in control of our decisions?” behavioral economist Dan Ariely uses examples and optical illusions to demonstrate the roles, strengths and limitations of sense perception as a way of knowing.
Our senses can sometimes be deceiving, and Descartes immediately comes to the conclusions that our senses cannot be a claim for knowledge. We have no proof that what we experience with our senses is true. Descartes says that we cannot truly...
In Stephen Jay Gould’s essay, “Some close encounters of a mental kind,” Gould discussed about how certainty can be both blessing and dangerous. According to Gould, certainty can be blessing because it can provide warmth, comfort and secure. However, it can also be a danger because it can trick our mind with false information of what we see and remember in our mind. Gould also talked about the three levels of possible error in direct visual observation: misperception, retention and retrieval. According to Gould, our human mind is the greatest miracle of nature and the wicked of all frauds and tricksters mixed. To support his argument and statements, he used an example of an experiment that Elizabeth Loftus, a professor from University of California Irvine, did to her students and a personal experience of his childhood trip to the Devils Tower. I agree with Gould that sight and memory do not provide certainty because what we remember is not always true, our mind can be tricky and trick us into believing what we see/hear is real due to the three potential error of visual observation. Certainty is unreliable and tricky.
This theory is Aristotle’s belief that something can not come out of nothing. Aristotle says, “How will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause?…The seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood”. What he is saying is that something must be set into motion by something else. There is always a cause to an effect. One relies on the other. Therefore, before origin there must have been an “immovable mover”, that being God.
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.
Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument of design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in the universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosopher holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
The knowledge question being pursued in this essay is: what role does what we expect to see- or are used to seeing- play in what we observe? What we expect to see greatly influences the observations that we make, as confirmation bias is created therefore we are more likely to accept something as true. It is difficult to make observations with neutrality once bias is formed.
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
Lucretius article from On the Nature of Things helps to support my opinion on how everything that surrounds us cannot be created from nothing; he believes that things were created by a divine power...
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. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?
Every day people read newspapers, magazines, books, comics, etc. and a vast majority of them never stop to think of how these objects are designed and made.