Why the Design Argument Fails
The Design Argument does fail due to its weaknesses, it is lacking in
factual and substantial evidence to prove its theories. It puts
forward a lot of ideas and claims however they are not justified well
enough; the only true fact is that you have to believe them. I feel it
is correct to claim that it fails due to the amount of criticising
evidence against the theories for the existence of God.
The main philosopher to criticise and object to the Teleogical
Argument was David Hume. He looked at every point towards the
existence towards a creator and designer and then thought logically
about the condemnation and came up with rebuttals. He realised that
most of the arguments put forward just relied on the reader to use
their faith and belief to consider it and assume it was correct with
no real evidence, just connections and assumptions.
The first objection he made was about the theory where Paley uses his
analogy about a watch. Hume clearly uses his logic here by describing
his own example of a human hair. He says that if we look at a piece of
hair, this tells us nothing as a whole of the human. This is the same
with the world, studying small parts will not tell us about the world
as a whole. He links this towards Paley because this is exactly what
he does. He looks at the interior of a watch and then somehow links it
to the world. I feel this is too big a link to make; linking a small
mechanical object towards a multifarious and complex world in which
millions of tasks are carried out at once. Just because a designer has
created a watch does not mean the world has a creator too. It would ...
... middle of paper ...
... if there is evidence of
a designer which would consequently prove the case for a superior
being, it would then mean the designer could not have been all
powerful and loving as people suffer hence this contradicts other
theories about God being all loving and caring. Dawkins also rejects
any design in the world and variations and he gives the reasoning down
to DNA mistakes, which is considered a mutation, and DNA mistakes
occurs quite a lot.
In conclusion I believe that the Design Argument fails due to the
substantial evidence against it. I do not think that the proof for the
existence of God can overcome this due to the fact that there are no
conclusive facts. It is incorrect to say that the Design Argument
proves the existence of God because it is not accurate and just based
upon bias theories and assumptions.
sensory perceptions. He is saying that because since he is a thing that think he could be creating an
..., color and texture of our hair and even the subtlest facial features. The true meaning of these words doesn't even justify its existence. They
In conclusion, the question of how hair texture among an ethnicity is determined has yet to be answered. However, new developments such as the evidence that all humans have the same single origin in Africa and mutations in the P2RY5 gene can determine the hair texture of a human, have shown that researchers are quite close in determining the hair texture of an ethnicity. These developments have the possibility of leading to new hair removal and hair growth treatments. The future looks bright for hair research and hopefully in the next 20-50 years the question is answered.
I have no senses. Body, shape, extension, movement and place are chimeras” (Descartes, p394). So the argument can change a little bit with the first piece comes to him – he doubts.
Claiming that the different senses have perceived in him the way once was before it came in contact with the heat, but still remains the same, although being perceived in a different way, but with the same senses as before except for it being liquid after the heat but remains with the same other traits he mentioned. Therefore, this is how he establishes his claim of the Aristotelian intellect and Cogito inference by rejecting everything and doubting its existence and separating the nature of the body and mind as the body being a non-extended thinking thing such as the senses, and the mind being a thinking thing that can extend. Descartes states that he perceives the wax through the mind alone and says that perception is not an imagination, touching or seeing but it is an inspection of the mind
piece of hair, a spot of blood, or skin tissue and make a positive identification on a
... of nature. In fact, this belief, which does beg the question, is what predominates his thinking.
that his creation is hideous and he has no idea what to do. When he sees what
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
...wax for example, he gathers a better idea of what it means to be a thinking thing. Since even his perceptions are accompanied by thinking, every time he perceives, he also thinks. Thus, he concludes that he knows his mind better than he knows his body; since he both employs his mind all of the time, and since his mind is a better source of knowledge than his perceptions.
Many of us know that a watch indeed does have a designer, but what if we had never seen a watch made before or known of anyone capable of such design? Lacking this knowledge, Paley argues, should raise no doubt in our mind that the object must have a designer. Even if the watch told the wrong time most of the time, Paley says that the intended purpose of the watch to tell time is still obvious. Paley says we should still conclude that the watch ...
Hume's day we now have a lot more knowledge so we don't know if we
Paley’s analogy came about from the concept of a stone. He encountered this stone during his walk and wondered how it came about (Paley, 1802, 196). He applies the idea that since a designer must have created this stone, this designer must have created other things just like how a watch is created by a watchmaker. His analogy for a watch and its watch maker becomes his key argument because he argues that you cannot come to a conclusion that a stone was formed by a natural process, just like how when you look at a watch it has a watchmaker (Paley, 1802, 96). When comparing it to a stone, Paley says someone must have created it.
Descartes makes a careful examination of what is involved in the recognition of a specific physical object, like a piece of wax. By first describing the wax in a manner such that “everything is present in the wax that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible” (67), he shows how easily our senses help to conceive our perception of the body. But even if such attributes are modified or removed, we still recognize the changed form, as the same piece of wax. This validates Descartes’ claim that “wax itself never really is the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers, nor the whiteness, nor the shape, nor the sound” (67), and the only certain knowledge we gain of the wax is that “it is something extended, flexible, and mutable” (67). This conclusion forces us to realize that it is difficult to understand the true nature of the wax, and its identity is indistinguishable from other things that have the same qualities as the wax. After confirming the nature of a human mind is “a thinking thing” (65), Descartes continues that the nature of human mind is better known than the nature of the body.
When he imagines things he seems to hear and see things. The Meditator realizes that he can exist without his imagination so then imagination must rely on something other then the mind. Imagination is connected to the body, which allows the mind to picture objects. With this being said the mind turns outward towards the body. He knows that his body experiences involuntary things like pain, hunger, pleasure, emotion, and thirst. He also understands that other bodies have s certain shape, movement, color, smell, and taste. The Meditator uses an example of a piece of wax coming from a honeycomb to help explain how we come to know what is really true. He first realizes what he knows about the piece of wax. He uses his senses to see the color, shape, and size of the honeycomb. He also uses his senses of taste and smell to actually know the taste of the piece of wax and the way it smells. If you place the piece of wax near a hot surface like a fire all the sensible qualities change so fast. The knowledge of the melted piece of wax cannot have come through the same senses because the properties that he has once seen have changed. He knows now that the wax is that it is extended, flexible, and changeable. He did not come to that conclusion through his senses but he didn’t come to it through his imagination either. He knows the wax has thee