1
Apr-22
1. Arguments for the existence of God
The Design argument: Paley
A posteriori = draw conclusions based on sense/experience (of design in the world).
Inductive = use premises to supply strong evidence for truth; “what is probably true”.
Based on complexity, regularity, and concluded purpose of the world; from complexity and regularity we
can conclude that the world has a purpose. The world therefore shows clear evidence of design.
Analogical argument: watch/universe design
If a watch was found on a path, it is clear that it has not always been there (like a stone may
have) because it is a complex artefact. Because of this complexity and regularity, we can infer
that it has a purpose.
1. A watch has complex parts, each with a function, that work together for a purpose.
2. Therefore, the watch must have been designed to serve this purpose.
3. The universe also has parts which function for a purpose.
4. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.
5. The universe is far more complex than a watch, meaning the designer must be much greater
than any human designer.
6. The designer is God.
Examples of complexity and regularity:
Eye as an example of complexity; all the parts fit and work together perfectly for vision
(purpose).
Fins/gills allow perfect adaptation to water.
Stars/planets/moons etc orbit perfectly – example of regularity.
Hume’s criticisms:
1. There is no evidence that the designer is the God of Christian theism.
Suggests that it could be a limited designer; the cause may be proportionate to the effect
(e.g., flaws in the world) – an omnipotent God is out of proportion to the evidence.
May have been a human designer, as intelligent minds are usually attached to bodies in our
experience.
May have been the work of multiple designers on a trial-and-error basis.
2. The existence of evil suggests the designer is limited.
If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, evil cannot exist.
Therefore, the designer may be an infant god or a limited designer.
3. Comparing the universe to a machine is illogical.
It is a natural thing – more like a vegetable, which grows independently without a designer.
This view is supported by evolution, showing that there are some natural processes that just
happen.
4. It is anthropomorphic to assume that universe-making is anything similar to that of human
design.
5. The universe could have come about by chance.
, 2
Apr-22
Epicurean Hypothesis – the world is merely changing arrangements of atoms; with infinite
time it was inevitable that they would arrange in the right way to create the universe.
EVALUATION: (+ Hume’s criticisms)
+ Simplest explanation is that the designer is the God of Christian theism (omnipotent).
o Swineburne: “simplicity is always evidence for truth.
+ May be unavoidable to create good without evil.
o E.g., free will defence: if we are to have freedom (and to have goodness) we need to be able to
choose between the highest goods and the highest evils, these evils have to exist.
o Hick: evil is ‘soul-making’ – without it we could never learn to love the good and reach heaven.
+ Evolution does not explain itself – something must have prompted it.
o It is the result of the laws of biology, which result from laws of chemistry, and subsequently the
laws of physics, created by God.
+ The designer must be transcendent because it would be impossible to create the universe from the
inside.
STATUS AS A PROOF:
Inductive, however the evidence doesn’t amount to scientific proof. (e.g., regularity of orbit is a
result of gravity, regularity in nature is equally likely to be down to chance).
However, can be used for ‘personal proof’ for those who believe in God (although, some may
consider attempt to prove God’s existence as undermining faith).
Can never amount to deductive proof.
VALUE FOR RELIGIOUS FAITH:
+ Supports faith with reasoning.
o Can talk rationally and meaningfully about God.
+ Can defend against atheism.
o Claims that religion is no more than idle speculation.
o Atheists have no more evidence that God does not exist than religious people do.
+ Simple therefore easy to understand.
- Faith does not depend on proof
Belief in vs belief that.
HOWEVER: + Paley provides evidence for belief that and comments on the wonder of design,
supporting belief in.
Apr-22
1. Arguments for the existence of God
The Design argument: Paley
A posteriori = draw conclusions based on sense/experience (of design in the world).
Inductive = use premises to supply strong evidence for truth; “what is probably true”.
Based on complexity, regularity, and concluded purpose of the world; from complexity and regularity we
can conclude that the world has a purpose. The world therefore shows clear evidence of design.
Analogical argument: watch/universe design
If a watch was found on a path, it is clear that it has not always been there (like a stone may
have) because it is a complex artefact. Because of this complexity and regularity, we can infer
that it has a purpose.
1. A watch has complex parts, each with a function, that work together for a purpose.
2. Therefore, the watch must have been designed to serve this purpose.
3. The universe also has parts which function for a purpose.
4. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.
5. The universe is far more complex than a watch, meaning the designer must be much greater
than any human designer.
6. The designer is God.
Examples of complexity and regularity:
Eye as an example of complexity; all the parts fit and work together perfectly for vision
(purpose).
Fins/gills allow perfect adaptation to water.
Stars/planets/moons etc orbit perfectly – example of regularity.
Hume’s criticisms:
1. There is no evidence that the designer is the God of Christian theism.
Suggests that it could be a limited designer; the cause may be proportionate to the effect
(e.g., flaws in the world) – an omnipotent God is out of proportion to the evidence.
May have been a human designer, as intelligent minds are usually attached to bodies in our
experience.
May have been the work of multiple designers on a trial-and-error basis.
2. The existence of evil suggests the designer is limited.
If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, evil cannot exist.
Therefore, the designer may be an infant god or a limited designer.
3. Comparing the universe to a machine is illogical.
It is a natural thing – more like a vegetable, which grows independently without a designer.
This view is supported by evolution, showing that there are some natural processes that just
happen.
4. It is anthropomorphic to assume that universe-making is anything similar to that of human
design.
5. The universe could have come about by chance.
, 2
Apr-22
Epicurean Hypothesis – the world is merely changing arrangements of atoms; with infinite
time it was inevitable that they would arrange in the right way to create the universe.
EVALUATION: (+ Hume’s criticisms)
+ Simplest explanation is that the designer is the God of Christian theism (omnipotent).
o Swineburne: “simplicity is always evidence for truth.
+ May be unavoidable to create good without evil.
o E.g., free will defence: if we are to have freedom (and to have goodness) we need to be able to
choose between the highest goods and the highest evils, these evils have to exist.
o Hick: evil is ‘soul-making’ – without it we could never learn to love the good and reach heaven.
+ Evolution does not explain itself – something must have prompted it.
o It is the result of the laws of biology, which result from laws of chemistry, and subsequently the
laws of physics, created by God.
+ The designer must be transcendent because it would be impossible to create the universe from the
inside.
STATUS AS A PROOF:
Inductive, however the evidence doesn’t amount to scientific proof. (e.g., regularity of orbit is a
result of gravity, regularity in nature is equally likely to be down to chance).
However, can be used for ‘personal proof’ for those who believe in God (although, some may
consider attempt to prove God’s existence as undermining faith).
Can never amount to deductive proof.
VALUE FOR RELIGIOUS FAITH:
+ Supports faith with reasoning.
o Can talk rationally and meaningfully about God.
+ Can defend against atheism.
o Claims that religion is no more than idle speculation.
o Atheists have no more evidence that God does not exist than religious people do.
+ Simple therefore easy to understand.
- Faith does not depend on proof
Belief in vs belief that.
HOWEVER: + Paley provides evidence for belief that and comments on the wonder of design,
supporting belief in.
