Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Design Argument for the existence of God Essay
The jut prohibited Argument can be split into ii sides inclination qua intend and externalise qua rule. The key idea of externalize qua purpose comes from William Paley. He used doctrine of analogy as the basis for his argument, noting how the complex design of a watch allows all the parts to work together suddenly to achieve its purpose. He then noted the complexity, order and purpose of the universe, stating that any manifestation on design, which represented in the watch, exists in the works of nature. thereof if a watchs intricacy stands as evidence that it has been designed, by analogy the universe mustiness overly have a cause and, as the designer is required to be supremely efficacious, the designer must be beau ideal.doubting Thomas also presented an argument to nominate design qua purpose. Similarly to Paley, he argued that all natural occurrences show evidence of design. He shouted that this suggested there is a universe which directs all things, and as humans have have intercourseledge this being must also be knowledgeable. Therefore there is an intelligent being that directs everything towards its purpose, and Aquinas stated that this being must be deity. Unlike Paley, Aquinas explained that beau ideal is a designer at work who continues to direct us towards our purpose as well as regulating the universe (e.g. the planets and the seasons). He also attempted to explain how free-will plays a part in design, claiming that we atomic number 18 programmed to reproduce just free-will allows us to choose who we reproduce with. Through these points he also demonstrated a key aspect of the design qua regularity side of the Teleological Argument.Another aspect of the argument is the anthropic principle, which was maiden introduced by F.R. Tennant. The significant difference of this principle to Paley and Aquinas ideas is that it doesnt refuse the scientific principles for existence, as Tennant said that the conditions for the deve lopment of human life were constitutional to the Big Bang. The strong principle says that the reason and purpose of the universe is to support human life, supported by the way the conditions on earth are perfect in order for us to break.For example, the atmosphere is 21% atomic number 8 which is near enough the exact amount that humans need. Consequently a greater being created the universe to support us, and the only being regent(postnominal) enough to do so is divinity fudge.On the other hand, the weak anthropic principle doesnt accept that life was inevitable from the beginning and preferably suggests that it just happened to have occurred. Richard Swinburne developed this by suggesting that the creation of the universe came pop come to the fore to probabilities rather than chance. He recognised that the universe could have easily been chaotic, just the fact that it isnt suggests some element of design. Tennant described this as the military man being compatible with a single throw of a cube, and said that common sense is not foolish in suspecting the cut is loaded.This explains how Swinburne and Tennant believed that it took an incredibly small singularity to create the cosmic explosion which created the universe, precisely the order and purpose is so beyond chance that there must have been a greater being behind it. This therefore shows how the anthropic principle is used to prove the existence of God. This principle has been supported by many other philosophers, including Fred Hoyle and Anthony Flew.Comment on the claim that this argument in all fails to prove the existence of GodCharles Darwin used the idea of internal survival to challenge the build Argument. This is a theory that claims that the strongest and most adapted species survive and therefore species develop and evolve naturally through time. Darwin argued that the illusion of design is actually a result of natural and random growth caused by Natural option, and not by Go d as the designer. Steve Jones described this process as a series of successful mistakes, which again doubts the involvement of God in the design of species.Nevertheless, Christians could object to this disproving that the form Argument proves the existence of God as the anthropic principle suggests that Natural Selection and Evolution are caused by God, as they are too unlikely to have occurred by chance.As a result, one would argue that Darwins theory doesnt hold up under its counter argument because Natural Selection can still occur with God being the designer of the universe.Freud also questions the Design Arguments success at proving the existence of God in his book The Future of an Illusion. In it, he describes ghostlike faith as an illusion based on wishful thinking, contestation that religion exists because people fear living in a chaotic and unordered world. Therefore we project order on to the universe out of fear and so our minds are predisposed to see order. Freud use s this idea to remainder that the order and regularity of the universe is a result of design, thus sceptical the existence of God overall.One would say that Freuds argument supports the claim that the Design Argument fails to prove Gods existence as it suggests that the universe is in fact not ordered perfectly as we perceive, and so Gods work as a designer is an illusion arisen from fear of chaos.Additionally, the Epicurean Hypothesis disputes that the designer of the universe could be the God of untarnished theism by exploring the idea of evil and suffering. Epicuris says that if God is uncoerced to prevent evil but isnt able to then he cant be omnipotent, and if hes able but not willing then he cant be benevolent. From this argument, he concluded that either God isnt the God of classic theism or God isnt the designer of the universe at all.On the other hand, Christians could counter this by arguing that evil and suffering is a test from God as an opportunity to prove our fait h to him. Therefore based on this, evil and suffering doesnt disprove that God is the ultimate designer.However, the argument still stands as if God was omniscient he wouldnt need to test people as he would know whether or not they were faithful. Also permitting evil and suffering would still advance him malevolent. Consequentlyone would say that the Epicurean Hypothesis still supports that the Design Argument fails to prove the existence of God.Overall, despite the Design Arguments in depth ideas such as the anthropic principle and design qua purpose and regularity, there are stronger scholarly arguments to support the claim that the Design Argument fails to prove the existence of God. Although the use of Darwins theory of Natural Selection can be cancelled out by its counter, Freuds idea of illusion both successfully argues that the apparent design is created out of fear of chaos and not the result of a supremely powerful source, and the Epicurean Hypothesis argues that the God o f classic theism cant exist under the premise of evil and suffering. Therefore these ideas effectively support that the Design Argument doesnt prove that God exists.