Paley’s argument discussed that an object so intricate and complex as a watch it must have a designer. The complex watch has so many functions and fragments inside of it such as the coils and the second and minute hands that move around the clock that make it so intricate. The watch has been really thought out. Inside the watch the middle and second hand move in equal and constant measured motion. The complexity of the watch shows that it has to be a product of a being that is very intelligent. The complexity of the watch can be also compared to the way our eye works. The eye is a complex organ that is able to regulate movement and perceive the world around us in a very complex way. Although the eyes are complex organs, it is one of the …show more content…
Accommodation of the eye is the changes of the optics of the eye to keep an object in fixate on the retina as its distance from the optical perceiver fluctuates. It is the procedure of correcting the central length of a lens. The ability of the eye to perform accommodation, a complex function is an argument that shows that the eye was created by an intelligent being, God. This can be compared to the cones and rods, the lens, muscles and other parts of the eye. Cones and rod helps a being see black and white and also color. The lens help focuses the eye to form clear images. The muscles in the eye help the eye rotate and move in many directions like up and down and side to …show more content…
For example you have your lateral, medial inferior and superior muscles. All these muscles have different abilities. These muscles help the eye move in many directions even helps us rotate and roll our eyes. These functions and abilities help shows that the being had to be intelligent and precise. It wasn’t something from random occurrence. It shows that someone who has created the eye has taken as much time as necessary and arranged it well. The eye functions and abilities is something of amazement and
The ability to compare the universe to a watch allows for familiarity, which is what I believe draws agreement and acknowledgement of his argument. It is thought that, as humans, we have at least one person in existence that is aware of how to put together a properly functioning watch, and we know that a watch needs to be put together intelligently. Given Paley’s reasoning he presents that the world is also intricately made which creates a parallel between a watch in the universe, giving individuals a sense of familiarity. As such, it naturally follows that there ought to be a universe maker, or God, who appears to be the only one capable of doing such a thing. Primarily, my concern is that the intelligent maker must be God; Paley merely assumes that the reader agrees and gives no further insight on why the creator must be God. Furthermore, he assumes the universe works without proof or any real knowledge which seems a rather fatal flaw. It is irresponsible to believe that the universe works the way we assume to fulfill our desire to explain the existence of God, similar to Mackie’s objection to the cosmological argument (Mackie 171). I do not believe Paley’s argument survives Hume’s objection due to the necessity of experience. He merely uses analogy to justify his claim; the only difference is that he has experience with a watch and none in regards to the universe. Again, he is
Paley was talking about the universe, with the watch as a metaphor. The universe is obviously much more complex than a watch and they both serve
William Paley develops his view of the design argument through an example of a wristwatch. He has the reader imagine themselves coming across a watch on the ground. He then asks the reader how they think the watch came to be there or came to exist in the first place. Looking at the watch, Paley says that one will notice the intricate design of the watch and notice that all the parts were put together in such a way to serve a purpose, namely, to tell time. Paley believes that from looking at the watch we will be lead to think that the watch has a clever designer. The watch displays a certain evidence of its own design.
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
The teleological argument begins by stating a special kind of argument, an a posteriori argument. An a posteriori argument is an argument based on the knowledge of experiences encountered in the world. For Paley, the a posteriori argument is established as he imagines himself nature walking, only to stumble upon a watch: a pocket watch, whose function is made visible through a transparent glass and made possible through gears and springs. Paley retrieves the watch and questions how such an object came to be in the middle of vegetation and is easily intrigued to reflect about the nature of the watch. Let us reflect about the physical attributes of the watch. Imagine for a second that the body of the watch was covered in highly polished gold metal and in the middle of its body laid a transparent glass. The glass lets us see two disproportionate metallic rods whose ends are encrusted with small diamonds. Apart from ...
In very complex machines, missing or undiscovered parts are more likely to arise; yet, such disorder would no doubt make an individual more curious as to the objects purpose. Although in some cases, a part may seem useless, the individual would continue to question and wonder what purpose that part serves. No one could believe that the watch was assembled together with sheer luck; therefore, an intelligent designer exists. The watch is definitely not made by the principle of order and it is not believable to say or think that the watch was not invented. Design cannot exist without the designer. Every appearance of design, which exists in the watch, exists in the works of nature. While the world is far more complex than a simplistic instrument, like a watch, it is no different when compared at the base levels, especially when seeing that both are so mechanical, showing elements of order.
Paley lays his argument as such: a watch is like the universe in complexity and functionality, a watch needs a designer, therefore, the universe needs a designer as well. Paley’s argument centers around the simile between a watch and the universe . He points out that the watch is complicated with many parts, yet all work together to form a functional machine. Paley shows in his argument that all the pieces of the watch are put together for a definite purpose. No matter how many watches were made before this one, Paley explains that the watch still has a maker. Watches cannot be designed by other watches, some superior being must have created at least the first one. The designer obviously understands how the watch works and how to create it to function properly.
The Teleological argument, given by William Paley in 1802 states that there is a “Designing Creator”, and that everything in this world has been designed to fulfill some sort of function. He bases this argument using a traditional time piece, a watch, as an analogy. Paley states that the watch, unlike a stone or a rock, could not have been placed or created by accident, and that the existence of a watch is proof that there must be a watchmaker. He compares this watch to the existence of the universe, stating that the universe itself is proof that there is some sort of designer present, and like a watch (but unlike a rock or stone) could not have been created by accident. He then continues to state that further evidence of a God can be found in the supposed “regularity” of the universe. Paley claims that due to the universe behaving in a very apparent manner, while retaining boundaries (Newtons laws of motion, etc) that this is a very apparent display of a God having rule over a very mechanical universe. Now Darwin on the other hand was a large
The reason why the argument fails is because Paley put’s emphasis on giving things a single sole purpose. If things had multiple purposes from Paley’s point of view then it would be a lot more difficult to strike the argument down. This argument also shows the 3 point rule god. Paley has shown in this argument that god is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. The argument also gives a good argument as to how certain things must have intelligent design in order for it to be created. This is where I believe it mostly thrives. If we were to look at another argument like The Ontological Argument it states that the greatest thing that we can conceive exists in the mind, but it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind, but if nothing greater than god can be conceived in the mind then god must exist in reality. This argument can easily be torn apart if someone just believes that god is not the greatest thing that can be conceived. It also does not prove god’s existence throughout the world physically, but with the mind. Where as Paley’s argument shows god through the “creations” he has created and explaining how god is the
A well known analogy of the teleological argument is the Watchmaker Argument, which was known by William Paley. The argument states that if one found a watch in an empty field, o...
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.
The eye is an extremely diverse organ, ranging in complexity across and within animal phyla. Here, a comparative approach is taken to outlining the diversity of the eye forms within vertebrates and invertebrates. The eye morphology of a variety of organisms was examined. Eye function, and placement on the body was also considered. Here, variation in eye form is discussed in relation to the environment the organism is adapted to. It is shown that an organisms eye morphology functions optimally for the ecological niche it occupies. Evolutionary analysis is used to account for the emergence of the different eyes. Convergent evolution is used to justify the similarities in eye types seen in organisms of different species. This analysis begins with the simplest of eye forms composes of single cells, present in the zooplankton larvae. Such primitive forms are identified in mollucs, annelids, cnidarians, and are then compared to more advanced eye forms contain lenses. This comparative approach provides a breadth of examples of vertebrates and invertebrates, making visible, the diversity of eye morphology within the animal kingdom.
He had two different approaches to how the universe was created. Paley compared a watched the way the universe, he thought the world was like a machine it must have a des... ... middle of paper ... ... nthropic Principle’ believed that ‘Nature produces living beings but with fine tuning that is found in the universe; life could just as easily not developed into earth’ I think that this quote is trying to say that the universe has been developed by evolution and was created by God, a designer.
The four main components of the eye that are responsible for producing an image are the cornea, lens, ciliary muscles and retina. Incoming light rays first encounter the cornea. The bulging shape of the cornea causes it to refract light similar to a convex lens. Because of the great difference in optical density between the air and the corneal material and because of the shape of the cornea, most of the refraction to incoming light rays takes place here. Light rays then pass through the pupil, and then onto the lens. A small amount of additional refraction takes place here as the light rays are "fine tuned" so that they focus on the retina.
The Eye is the organ of sight. Eyes enable people to perform daily tasks and to learn about the world that surrounds them. Sight, or vision, is a rapidly occurring process that involves continuous interaction between the eye, the nervous system, and the brain. When someone looks at an object, what he/she is really seeing is the light that the object reflects, or gives off.