Teleological Arguments

Hume’s design argument from analogy

• P1. In 'the fitting of means to ends', nature resembles the products of human design.  

• P2. Similar effects have similar causes.  

• P3. The cause of the products of human design such as a machine is an intelligent mind that intended the design.  

• C1. Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design.  

• C2: Therefore an intelligent designer (God) exists. 

Scientific explanation

Explains an object or other event in terms of the scientific laws of nature. Eg. Fell over due to gravity.  

Personal explanation

Explains an object or other event in terms of a person and their purposes. Eg. He fell over because he wanted to change the lightbulb and leant too far from the ladder.  

The design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume)

• P1: Design arguments make the inference that this universe and its properties were caused by a designer. 

• P2: We can make an inference that 'X caused Y' only if we have repeatedly observed event X conjoined to event Y. 

• P3: We have observed only one universe and its properties are a unique case. 

• P4: We have never observed the origins of any universe. 

• C1. We cannot make an inference about the cause and origins of this universe and its properties. 

• C2: Design arguments are based on invalid inference. 

Paley's design argument from spatial order 

• P1: Anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed.  

• P2: Nature contains things which have parts that are organised to serve a purpose.  

• C1: Therefore, nature contains things which are designed. 

• P3: Design can only be explained in terms of a designer. 

• P4: A designer must have a mind and be distinct from what is designed.  

• C2: Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature. 

• C3: Therefore, such a mind (God) exists. 

Swinburne's design argument from temporal order

• P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order/regularities of succession for example the regular and universal laws of nature. 

• P2: There are two possible explanatory hypotheses: temporal order has a scientific explanation; or temporal order has a personal explanation.  

• P3: Science can only explain the existence of regularities of succession in terms of more fundamental regularities of succession. So, we cannot give a complete scientific explanation of the temporal order displayed in the fundamental laws of science (science cannot itself explain why the fundamental laws of science exist as they do). 

• P4: The second hypothesis can explain scientific regularities of succession. They are similar to regularities of succession produced by human agents and so, by analogy, are produced by rational agency. 

• P5: The agency in question would have to be of immense power and intelligence, free and disembodied. 

• C1: Therefore, an agent probably exists (God) with immense power and intelligence, who is free and disembodied. 

Problem of spatial disorder

Paley claims spatial order proves God exists as it’s a mark of design. Spatial disorder like suffering and natural disasters present a problem because suffering in the universe implies that the designer is imperfect. There is no reason for spatial order to take priority over spatial disorder to evidence a designer.

The Epicurean Hypothesis

Finite matter in infinite time means that all possible combinations of matter have to occur at some point in time.

Natural selection as an argument against God

It seems as if the universe is designed to accommodate specific forms of life but these specific forms of life have evolved to survive in their environment. The giraffe has a long neck because the acacia tree is tall, the acacia tree isn't tall because the giraffe has a long neck.

Paley’s claim about organised parts

Anything with parts organised to serve a purpose is designed.

What is temporal order

Temporal order is regularities of succession such as the laws of nature.

The problem with scientific explanations

Science explains regularities only by appealing to deeper regularities, not their ultimate origin.

Hume’s objections to the design argument from analogy

The universe and a human-made machine lack relevant similarity. Parts of the universe showing purpose does not imply the whole does (fallacy of composition). Therefore, a designer inferred from analogy would be finite and imperfect, not the God of classical theism.