1. 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 …show more content…
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
The main argument here though, would be valid and would be that the universe was not created by chance. The universe was created for a purpose. Obviously Paley was trying to get the message that God was above all and that he created the heavens and the Earth and was the most powerful. But he did it to where it was neither making a valid point nor conflicted with itself. His argument does not have a true premise, or it’s not entirely accurate. It is neither been proven or disproven.
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
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.
...erfect goodness and is morally good all the time. Paley's supreme being is never attributed with being a good or bad, loving or hateful, individual. A second important characteristic of God is that he is omniscient; he knows everything about anything there is to know; although Paley's supreme being is intelligent enough to engender the first creation, it does not imply that he knows about all the subsequent creations which rose from that first creation. Thirdly, God is considered to be all-powerful or omnipotent while the supreme being possesses the power to create the first creation. Lastly, God is an eternal being whose existence defies space and time. At the start of Paley's a posteriori argument, it was concluded that while anything that shows evidence of creation has a creator, such creator exists or has existed at one point in time but is by no means eternal.
Mackie wishes to disprove the existence of God, or at least the view of God being both omnipotent and wholly good, through an argument which uses the problem of the existence of evil. Here is how he lays the argument out: 1. Suppose there is a God, whom is composed of the above characteristics. 2. If this God is omnipotent, then there is no limit to His ability or what He can do. 3. If this God is wholly good then it would be assumed that He would want to eliminate evil completely. 4. If there was a God who knew evil existed, could eliminate evil, and wanted to eliminate evil then it would make logical sense that there would be no evil. 5. However, evil does exist. 6. Therefore an omnipotent and wholly good God cannot exist. This argument is analogous, say, to a master chef, in that this chef is capable of cooking only the best tasting food in the world, he is able to cook this way all the time, and he knows that people only like good tasting food. However, in this chef's restaurant there always seems to be some food that is vile tasting. But, if the Chef was able to cook the best tasting food all the time and he knew that people only wanted good tasting food, then we would have to surmise that this type of chef could not possibly exist. Again, Mackie's argument is not against the existence of God, but against the existence of a God that is composed of the characteristics of being omnipotent and wholly good.
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
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.
In this universe everything has a cause of its existence, so this universe might have a cause, but no is sure who created, so we as humans think that God created this universe, but unless if you’re an atheist who doesn’t believe in God. The reason time exist because of this universe, which mean that time has a cause and time didn’t exist before if the universe wasn’t existed. At the end of the day, as opposed to surmise that God exists, we may think there is only an interminable relapse of causes. Something has dependably existed. God's presence isn't coherently demonstrated, yet it is likely, given the premises. Considered without anyone else, the claim God exists is exceptionally implausible, says Swinburne. However, in light of the cosmological contention, it turns out to be more plausible, on the grounds that God's presence is the best clarification for why the universe exists. God is the real reason why orders and purpose of things that we find on this universe, according to design, viz. We can include the contention from religious experience and a contention from supernatural occurrences. Each work a similar way, “The presence of God is the best clarification for these wonders”. When we set up every one of these contentions together, he asserts, it turns out to be more likely that God exists than that God doesn't. the premises are conceivable, and the inductions are natural. So, in spite of the fact that it isn't an explanatory
St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself.
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.
What I found important in this reading is the basis of Paley’s idea, the watchmaker. Paley believes that design implies that there is a designer. He uses the analogy of a watch to show that in order for a watch to work it needs a spring or someone to make the watch work. He compares this to the idea of natural theology and that in order for the intelligent design of the universe to happen there needs to be a designer. This idea then becomes the
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.
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 ... ...
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.