Cleanthes' argument from design for God's existence is not convincing. He compares two different ideas and thus, wrongly generalizes. He also commits a fallacy, and doesn’t meet the criteria necessary for the type of argument he offers. Although, a few potential strong points are present in his beliefs, like the improbability of chance, and the incomprehensible evidence of God, they are still not strong enough for His justification.
Cleanthes through an a posteriori, inductive argument claims that since the presence of small machines (i.e. houses) implies human design, the presence of an even bigger machine (i.e. the universe) implies a human-like intelligence behind it as well as "the adapting of means to ends in natural and human machines …show more content…
He generalizes a part to the whole when they are two obviously distinct subjects. Philo describes the misinterpretation well when he objects that "the manner of a leaf’s blowing, […] afford us any instruction concerning the vegetation of a tree?" (D2.18). The leaf is so tiny in contrast to the biological making of a whole tree. Similarly, there is not a lot we can sustain from a limited chunk of something much greater than itself. Accurately displaying that Cleanthes takes a giant leap to the conclusion he makes. There is so much uncertainty in his argument that it diminishes the entire thing (D2.17). Which is also proven like so, if we were to interpret that since Earth is a planet, and it sustains life (humans, plants, animals, etc.) every other object in space should as well, we know we would be wrong. Scientifically speaking, life does not exist outside of the Earth in the milky way at least. Therefore, even in the case of items that resemble, generalization is …show more content…
Scientists have discovered theories such as evolution and natural selection that are backed up by solid proof instead of observations alone. As a result, if we were to argue that nature is too flawless in its construction, these theories seem more plausible than the belief of an invisible designer. Largely because they have gone through extensive research, unlike God who can’t really be proven.
Some may then debate that the provided evidence for the existence of God is only at the disposal of those who understand it. In his argument, Cleanthes refers to a whole library written in a universal language present to us in nature (D3.2). Thus, he illustrates the fact that humans have an abundance of available information, and we must make an effort to uncover it to even come close to becoming a believer. Through this rationalization, if one ever attempted to deny God, it may be inferred that they are either ignorant or even lazy, because of their inability to comprehend the proof at
Cleanthes through an a posteriori, inductive argument claims that since the presence of small machines (i.e. houses) implies human design, the presence of an even bigger machine (i.e. the universe) implies a human-like intelligence behind it as well as "the adapting of means to ends in natural and human machines …show more content…
He generalizes a part to the whole when they are two obviously distinct subjects. Philo describes the misinterpretation well when he objects that "the manner of a leaf’s blowing, […] afford us any instruction concerning the vegetation of a tree?" (D2.18). The leaf is so tiny in contrast to the biological making of a whole tree. Similarly, there is not a lot we can sustain from a limited chunk of something much greater than itself. Accurately displaying that Cleanthes takes a giant leap to the conclusion he makes. There is so much uncertainty in his argument that it diminishes the entire thing (D2.17). Which is also proven like so, if we were to interpret that since Earth is a planet, and it sustains life (humans, plants, animals, etc.) every other object in space should as well, we know we would be wrong. Scientifically speaking, life does not exist outside of the Earth in the milky way at least. Therefore, even in the case of items that resemble, generalization is …show more content…
Scientists have discovered theories such as evolution and natural selection that are backed up by solid proof instead of observations alone. As a result, if we were to argue that nature is too flawless in its construction, these theories seem more plausible than the belief of an invisible designer. Largely because they have gone through extensive research, unlike God who can’t really be proven.
Some may then debate that the provided evidence for the existence of God is only at the disposal of those who understand it. In his argument, Cleanthes refers to a whole library written in a universal language present to us in nature (D3.2). Thus, he illustrates the fact that humans have an abundance of available information, and we must make an effort to uncover it to even come close to becoming a believer. Through this rationalization, if one ever attempted to deny God, it may be inferred that they are either ignorant or even lazy, because of their inability to comprehend the proof at