There is one prevailing question each of us ask ourselves consistently, “Does God exist?” Even though people’s responses are different, nearly all responses are contingent upon one’s beliefs, experiences, and influences. Despite the lack of knowledge, God is known to be an all-loving, all-powerful, and creator of all things in most communities, but those qualities are often questioned by scientists and philosophers. The existence of God was significantly debated among philosophers during the 18th and 19th centuries, however, each esteemed philosopher had a distinct argument explaining their rationale, while criticizing another’s. In this paper, I will analyze William Paley’s, teleological argument, which is the argument for the existence of
…show more content…
Although both arguments establish valid justifications of God’s existence, an exact answer is still unknown. William Paley was a Christian philosopher from the late 1700’s best known for his teleological argument for the existence of God, which is also known as the design argument, which argues the existence of God by seeking evidence through design in creation. The main idea of Paley’s argument asserts that the universe is too intricate and highly ordered to have been created by accident or incidental change, therefore, providing proof of God’s existence. The word teleology is derived from the Greek root word telos, which means “purpose” or “goal” furthermore, Paley believed that every design had a valuable purpose and every designed thing implies a designer. For example, Paley uses a watch to represent a telos due to its functional complexity that accurately differentiates articles created by …show more content…
He expressed that you can only use an analogy to argue for things that are equivalent to each other, but the universe is far more unique than a watch. Hume also states that you can only use an analogy regarding things you have empirically encountered, but since no one has encountered the beginning of the universe it cannot be argues analogically. He questions Paley’s belief of an intelligent designer by claiming that a designer needs a designer, so who designed the intelligent designer? Hume then argues that there is no proof of a single designer, signifying that there can be more than one designer as oppose to Paley’s argument for one intelligent creator. Hume asks whether the complex order seen in the universe is the product of some divine, brilliant creator, or if it is due to the blind, uncaring, abstract forces of nature [rather than God] just reacting as they do? He also claims that every detail of intelligence that we have an understanding of is within animals, then proceeds to argue that it is more logical to view intelligence not as the originating cause of conflict order, but as a resulted cause. Hume believes that intelligence is not the beginning cause, but it is the blind, uncaring forces of nature that contributes to cause. A law implies a law creator, without a law creator, the law is meaningless and cannot accomplish anything to where Hume
Although both arguments establish valid justifications of God’s existence, an exact answer is still unknown. William Paley was a Christian philosopher from the late 1700’s best known for his teleological argument for the existence of God, which is also known as the design argument, which argues the existence of God by seeking evidence through design in creation. The main idea of Paley’s argument asserts that the universe is too intricate and highly ordered to have been created by accident or incidental change, therefore, providing proof of God’s existence. The word teleology is derived from the Greek root word telos, which means “purpose” or “goal” furthermore, Paley believed that every design had a valuable purpose and every designed thing implies a designer. For example, Paley uses a watch to represent a telos due to its functional complexity that accurately differentiates articles created by …show more content…
He expressed that you can only use an analogy to argue for things that are equivalent to each other, but the universe is far more unique than a watch. Hume also states that you can only use an analogy regarding things you have empirically encountered, but since no one has encountered the beginning of the universe it cannot be argues analogically. He questions Paley’s belief of an intelligent designer by claiming that a designer needs a designer, so who designed the intelligent designer? Hume then argues that there is no proof of a single designer, signifying that there can be more than one designer as oppose to Paley’s argument for one intelligent creator. Hume asks whether the complex order seen in the universe is the product of some divine, brilliant creator, or if it is due to the blind, uncaring, abstract forces of nature [rather than God] just reacting as they do? He also claims that every detail of intelligence that we have an understanding of is within animals, then proceeds to argue that it is more logical to view intelligence not as the originating cause of conflict order, but as a resulted cause. Hume believes that intelligence is not the beginning cause, but it is the blind, uncaring forces of nature that contributes to cause. A law implies a law creator, without a law creator, the law is meaningless and cannot accomplish anything to where Hume