arguments based on observation

aquinas' teleological argument

if we observe telos in living things this suggests that the designer has designed the object with a purpose in mind.

strengths for aquinas' teleological argument

some non-thinking things are able to achieve a purpose. an arrow needs an archer to direct it, the same thing could be assumed in nature, things need to be directed towards a purpose (by a designer). why are we here, using God to explain this works.

weaknesses for aquinas' teleological argument

non-thinking things have adapted, it isn't about purpose, it's about survival - things look designed but it's only because ill-adapted things have died out. purpose is a human construct, there is no evidence of a definitive purpose of living things - aquinas made an assumption. aquinas makes a leap assuming that a deistic god and theistic god are the same thing.

paley's teleological argument

if you found a watch, you would assume it had been designed because it is intricate and has purpose. the same goes for a human eye, a piece of biological machinery that is highly intricate and has purpose, so you must then assume that the eye too must have been designed. this designer must have been god.

strengths of paley's teleological argument

purpose in the world suggests a designer, just as purpose in a watch suggests a designer. purpose can be observed in living beings - birds wings are designed to fly. regularity and patterns, such as gravity can be seen throughout nature, suggesting a designer. even if the watch was broken paley argued that it still had overall design and purpose.

design qua purpose

the universe was designed to fulfil a purpose - paley

weaknesses of paley's teleological argument

hume argues that there is a leap from observing purpose and assuming purpose was designed by a god. dawkins claimed that natural selection is a blind process, there is no intentional purpose, we just mutate and adapt. some natural things don't have a purpose, what's the purpose of a wasp? the law of entropy states there is a tendency toward disorder rather than order, suggesting the mind is the way it is by a series of chances. there are too many faults in the world to suggest god designed it - earthquakes, extinction.

hume's criticisms of the teleological argument

analogies lead to mistaken conclusions. the teleological argument is a fallacy of composition. if you used balancing scales and one side is hidden, we can only guess what is weighing it down, much like the universe. the designer could be a baby, or many people or someone evil - they may not be divine, this is an assumption.

charles darwin's theory of evolution

darwin used observations and evidence to show that through natural selection, the best adapted creatures survive - survival of the fittest. this shows there is no design, as living beings just adapt. evolution is a random, impersonal process.

aquinas' cosmological argument - argument from motion

motion is a change in potentiality to actuality - aquinas argued that nothing can move itself, although there must have been an unmoved mover that caused everything else, aquinas thought this was god.

aquinas' cosmological argument - argument from cause

there must have been an uncaused cause, something that began the chain of events, there cannot be infinite regress, aquinas thought this uncaused cause was god.

aquinas' cosmological argument - argument from contingency

everything in the universe is contingent so in order for the world to exist there must be something outside the universe that is not contingent, that everything in the universe is contingent on. aquinas said this thing was god.

strengths of aquinas' cosmological argument

this argument only seeks to explain why the universe exists, not how. we can observe that things are contingent. there has to have been a beginning. we can observe cause and effect.

weaknesses of aquinas' cosmological argument

if we believe the future is infinite, why can the past not be infinite too? correlation doesn't equal causation, do we really observe cause and affect? just because things in the universe are contingent, doesn't mean the universe is contingent.

hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument

aquinas relies too heavily on inductive reasoning, the links between cause and affect are unclear. hume said the universe's existence is a "brute fact", it just exists, not everything needs a cause.

inductive

evidence is collected based on observations and experiences to suggest a hypothesis which is reinforced by further observations and experiences. this argument doesn't seek to prove anything.

deism

belief a creator started the world then had nothing to do with it

a posteriori argument

an inductive argument

fallacy of composition

what is observed about the parts cannot be assumed for the whole

logical fallacy

an error in logical reasoning

theism

the belief that god is active and involved in the world, as in monotheistic religions