In this paper, I will defend David Hume’s arguments for the design argument, which states that the design argument fails. Hume’s objections to the design argument are first, that we cannot compare human artifacts to the universe because these are too different; second, that we have not witnessed the design of a universe; and third, that we cannot conclude that God is the only one. He criticizes the design argument by pointing out that the analogy is based only on limited experience, making it impossible to obtain knowledge of God. I will examine if Hume’s argument that the design argument fails is correct by evaluating the analogy in the design argument. William Paley, a leading philosopher, presented the design argument for the existence of God in his most important work, “Natural Theology”. The
…show more content…
A good analogy has one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the Analogue that determine the Assigned-Predicate and the elements of the Target-Subject. Moreover, there are two different types of a analogy: a same-domain-analogy and a different-domain-analogy. In a same-domain-analogy, the relations between the elements of the different objects are the same but also the elements are from the same domain. Juthes presents John Stuart Mill’s argument for other minds as a classical example of a same-domain-analogy. The Target-Subject is other people’s behavior and the Analogue is his own feeling and the Assigned-Predicate is that other people have minds too. Elements of the Target-Subject are: (1)Body exhibit acts, (2) Body exhibit outward signs, (3)modifications of body, (4) Feeling and other mental states causes (1) and (2), and is caused by (3). Elements of the Analogue are: (1)Body exhibit acts, (2) Body exhibit outward signs, (3)modifications of his body (4) Feeling and other mental states causes (1) and (2), and is caused by (3). Juthes states this is a good analogy because there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the
A good analogy has one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the Analogue that determine the Assigned-Predicate and the elements of the Target-Subject. Moreover, there are two different types of a analogy: a same-domain-analogy and a different-domain-analogy. In a same-domain-analogy, the relations between the elements of the different objects are the same but also the elements are from the same domain. Juthes presents John Stuart Mill’s argument for other minds as a classical example of a same-domain-analogy. The Target-Subject is other people’s behavior and the Analogue is his own feeling and the Assigned-Predicate is that other people have minds too. Elements of the Target-Subject are: (1)Body exhibit acts, (2) Body exhibit outward signs, (3)modifications of body, (4) Feeling and other mental states causes (1) and (2), and is caused by (3). Elements of the Analogue are: (1)Body exhibit acts, (2) Body exhibit outward signs, (3)modifications of his body (4) Feeling and other mental states causes (1) and (2), and is caused by (3). Juthes states this is a good analogy because there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the