Evaluating Paley's Design Argument

In his third argument about arguing from mind to design, he states that using the mind as a representation is only a small part of universe (Paley, 1802, 197). For example, a watch must have had a watchmaker because such a complex idea and mechanism could not have just come from nature. A creator with prior knowledge of the watch must have created it. Therefore, the universe must have had a creator. This creator was God.

William Paley uses the invention of a watch as an analogy to the invention of the universe. He argues that if we observe the very complicated and detailed design of the universe we can see that there was in fact a maker. Paley argues that the complicated structure of a watch is enough prove that there was a watch maker just like the complicated structure of the universe is prove enough to show that there is universe maker. He also shows that the

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we are introduced to three characters that serve the purpose to debate God and his nature, more specifically, what can mankind infer about God and his nature. The three characters; Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes all engage in a debate concerning this question and they all serve the purpose of supporting their views on the subject. It is the “argument from design” put forth by Cleanthes that is the focal point of the discussion, and it is Demea and Philo who attempt to discredit it.

The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance. These arguments were notably criticised by David Hume, who said that using an analogy can anthropomorphosise God - make him similar to humans, and also questioned why a benevolent creator who designed the world would create evil too? The aim of these arguments is to show that God's existence is a reasonable conclusion, and is probable rather than necessary.

Firstly, Paley concentrates in the process leading to the creation of the watch. The process for creating a watch is very systematic and involves knowledge of mechanical engineering, a trade known to few men. Yet, it is not necessary to know the inner workings of the watch to use it on a daily basis: it is only necessary to understand the relationship between the position of the watch's hands to the sunrise and sunset of day. Paley concludes that even though he could not create a watch, some supreme being could create such watch. In other words, anything that shows evidence of creation has a creator and such creator exists or has existed at one point in time.

William Paley's argument for the existence of God is an important aspect of the Design argument, which argues that the universe is being directed towards an end purpose due to the a posteriori (subject to experience) evidence of an intelligent designer, who is God. This is because it is perhaps arguably the most famous version, and the theory which modern-day theories for the Design argument are built upon.

Paley’s made his argument using an analogy to prove the existence of god, using a watchmaker analogy and to image if we found a watch on the ground and could it have been possible for the watch to simply appear randomly, spontaneously on its own. Paley was arguing that the teleology demonstrated by a watch would conclude that it was designed by an intelligent creator with a particular end in mind. While Aquinas has a design argument of his own ,the Teleological argument focuses on the condition that allows for life in the universe to only occur when certain fundamental physical constants are within a very narrow range if one of many fundamental constant are off slightly, then the universe would be unfit for the development of matter and life. Since these things are so finely tuned it appears an intelligent designer may have been involved in making sure these things happened so life could occur that designer Aquinas believes to be

In his discussion of the argument from design, which he links with teleological principles, the author refers to the concept of design in a way that alludes to the conviction that there are certain divine manifestations in the world that are so perfect that they must revolve around a grand architect who conceived them to be that way. Therefore, he says that proving such an argument requires "indisputable examples of design or purpose" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). However, this standard of indisputability that McCloskey is holding this argument to,

This has to do with faith. Faith means believing in the existence of something without having any physical proof. Therefore, it could very well be a test of faith put into place by an all powerful and all knowing being to have people toy with the notion of its’ existence. As a result, Hume’s idea that we would be able to understand God’s plan is flawed. While we all can suggest that God would like for us to behave in a way conducive to showing we have love for all other human beings simply because this would allow for a peaceful universe, one can’t assume that this is God’s plan. Moreover, one definitely can’t assume that this enables us to understand God’s purpose for the world. Additionally, one can’t automatically assume that because our world is filled with various evils, an all powerful God does not exist. In fact, one could argue the exact opposite. Simply because our world is filled with evil acts and people committing these acts, there must be an all powerful God that exists in order to reward all those that manage to resist engaging in evil acts. Hume argues that we can’t infer that an all powerful being exists because of the tremendous amounts of evil that go on in our world. However, this could be an all powerful God’s way to get rid of all those he feels is not worthy of achieving eternal life in his heavenly kingdom. Therefore, this world could merely be a testing stage for humans to prove they

This means that the system appears impossible to create by the course of naturalistic evolution, that is, many small and gradual steps that eventually form the functioning product. Evolutionary theory proponents have, so far, been unable to satisfactorily address the issue of irreducible complexity in biological systems such as the eye and the blood. Intelligent Design theorists, however, are easily able to explain the phenomenon of irreducible complexity by pointing to the existence of an intelligent being that either guided or created the first forms of life.

By analyzing Descartes’ reasoning behind his proof of God, I conclude that Hume would disagree with it as he believes humans can manufacture the idea of God using external sources. In his Third Meditation, Descartes attempts to verify that God exists through an ontological argument. Descartes believes his ideas are like “images which can easily fall short of the perfection of the things from which they are taken, but which cannot contain anything greater or more perfect” (Descartes 29). He then asserts that if the “reality” of any of his ideas is

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

William Paley has a similar logical gap in his “Argument from Design,” but he attempts to address this issue in “Chapter V.” Previously in this argument, Paley attests that the nature of humans and their parts implies a designer. From the discussion in class, Paley’s argument can be organized as follows:

As for Paley’s theory he believes that nature must have a designer and that the designer is God, he believed we all have a purpose and everything that we do has purpose. Paley says that with our abilities to create artifacts that resemble the universe then there has to be a creator of the universe and everything that is in it. Either nature or some of its parts have design like properties they show evidence of being

     In being a naturalist, Hume relates humans as being one in the same with animals, at least when it comes to causal reasoning. We are no more reasonable than animals because the faculty of the human mind that allows us to see into the truth has arisen in us naturally. The sharp difference between humans and animals is the ability to draw on the inference of necessary connections in nature and being able to think about them. Hume does not doubt that there may exist some God with a form of discerning between right and wrong, but he denies that our ability to do so came from such a God. We know a God has to exist only as a cause of the effects we ascribe to him. Hume describes God as an “empty hypothesis” because he is used only to explain certain phenomena that we may not otherwise be able to explain. We have no direct knowledge or first hand experience of God and so we cannot give Him any qualities besides those that we