Thomas Paley Design Argument

Paley's design argument is the most well-known philosophical argument on the subject of the existence of a deity. This argument probes into the property of objects in nature and claims that the very best explanation for their existence is an intelligent mind that created them.

The strongest criticism comes from Hume, stating that the complexity of the universe and barely few entities that have been explored about the universe both accuse Paley of making such a weak analogy between a watch and the universe. However, on the defense of Paley, the scientific universe has such delicate and accurate physical definition and law so that indicates the sign of design. The argument is compelling is that each well-adapted creatures demonstrate signs

of design influenced by the process of evolution.

Paley's argument was introduced by the idea of walking in the woods, and spotting a rock which its existence has been taken for granted.

Its existence could be purely made by nature and no one would suspect there is a design that has created it. If there is a watch instead of a rock, then the case is different. By inspecting the watch, it is intricate to see many components that interact with one another so that the purpose is fulfilled as time-keeping. This configuration cannot be the product of nature through some certain internal principles. It is unavoidable to imply there is an intelligent planning mind that has conceived it and created it. Therefore, each human artifacts infers an intelligent designer. The universe has more in one way that resembles human artifacts. Given those two premises, a conclusion is drawn that perhaps the universe is also a product of an intelligent design. Moreover, the universe is far more complex and vast in size and variation that the intelligent designer is much more sophisticated and mighty in

mind.

With the respect to the objections from David Hume, which point to the weakling inferences made from a watch to the universe. First, Inferences are made by similar causes that lead to similar outcomes. Those similar outcomes imply the nearly same reason. Therefore, those inferences are appropriate only when the cause has been experienced and lead to some sort of outcomes. Due to the limitation of knowledge of the universe and the lack of experience when the universe first existed, it is irrational to infer a designer for the universe even though it is apparently designed. Hence, there is an enormous gap between the design of clocks and the design of the universe.

Second, the complexity and size of the universe are both far more complicated and vast than a clock, and there just a few entities are known for the universe that could just happen to infer a designer. Therefore, it is not convincing and conclusive to infer a designer for the universe from such a small sample.

The third point of objection to the design argument goes around about the doubts of the designer, if the argument is valid then it does not limit to exactly one creator, there could be multiple. Besides, the designer does not need to be perfect then it contradicts with the divine God. The designer is powerful does not imply it has to be omnipotent as God or omniscient.

Moving to the defense against Hume's objection, the analogy between a watch and the Cosmo is subject to criticism because the ignorance on the physics of the universe.

The universe is such a delicate design that obey strict physical law and principles so that a flaw in the physics would result in a drastic impact that made the universe does not even contain matter. Another standpoint to defend is to use one of Paley's caveats, which implies that it is unnecessary to know how to create a clock to infer the existence of an intelligent planning mind. This does apply back to the Hume's objection that we do not need to fully understand the universe in order to infer there is a design. Finally, another caveat to defend from the questions of the God as a designer, it is needless to know the maker of the watch in order to be sure it has one. The mechanism of a watch apparently tells there is an agency, likewise the universe, its magnificence and complexity indicate a design without knowing the creator to further prove it.

As for why Paley's design argument is compelling, the evolution conceives species that are well-adapted and well-designed that are more prone to detect signs of design far more often than we should. For example, a squid uses color-blind camouflage to hide from its predators. This design in nature later on, serves as an inspiration for Navy

search.

Overall, the design argument implies that there is an intelligent mind that conceived objects in nature and further infers that the universe also implies design by God. This argument is subject to the criticism of Hume's that pointed at the weakling analogy between the Cosmo and the watch. However, this could be defended
by the strict physics of the universe as a well-crafted artwork and two caveats of Paley's. The compelling part of this argument is that the fact of designs more often found on creatures than we should due to the evolution.