Arguments from Observation (teleological & cosmological)

What did Socrates say about design?

"With such signs of forethought of design in living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of design?"

What does Psalms 19 say on design?

"The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands".

What type of approach is the design argument?

A-posteriori, empirical.

What is the teleological argument?

When we see design, we can conclude God exists - nature's complexity is not of chance, therefore there must be a being outside of the universe which designed it with the clear purpose it seems to have (telos).

Why does Paley argue the universe is evidence of God?

It is complex and fits together so clearly for a purpose.

What is the time period context to Paley?

Lots of new scientific understanding and complexity of life discovered - point to intricacy of design.

What is Paley's watch analogy?

If you found a simple rock, you'd assume it had just always existed. However, if you found a watch, you'd assume it is too complex, purposeful and orderly to happen accidentally - It must have an intelligent designer, even if it is imperfect or we don't see it made - we can assume this from the intricacy.

What is Paley's argument around diminution of care and fear of God forgetting us?

We see no diminution of care in creation's variety, e.g. an earwig has intricate antennae joints. This suggests God puts so much care into everything that we can't fear being forgotten; he sustains us.

How does the watch compare to the universe according to Paley?

Design in the universe necessitates a designer - Paley emphasises complexity is greater than any human machine, e.g. an eye - this necessitates design.

How do Aquinas and Paley differ?

Aquinas focuses on things following each other according to a teleological law, while Paley focuses on the purpose clear in all things - Aquinas' focus is more on regularity indicating design.

What is a weakness of Paley's mechanisation comparison of the universe?

It is too assumptive - it suggests nature is like a man-made machine. This comparison is too much of a leap and may not be true, i.e. that nature is or isn't mechanistic. Thus, it is a logical fallacy.

What is qua purpose and qua regularity?

qua purpose - Design appears to fit together for a purpose.

qua regularity - Order/regularity indicates design.

How does Paley's argument focus on qua purpose?

Everything intricately fits together for a purpose in the universe, suggesting God created the universe with a telos as opposed to it coming together by chance.

What book did Paley write that detailed his teleological design views?

Natural Theology.

How does Paley use the eye to support his analogy and why may some oppose this?

Like effects have like causes - every design criteria of the watch is also in the eye.

However, this is not a universal; going from an eye to the universe seems to be a massive leap.

What did Dawkins call evolution?

The "blind watchmaker".

Why do some criticise the common view of God in the design argument?

God is anthropomorphised - he seems like an ideal based on human constructs who created everything 'perfectly', when 'perfect' is in fact just a subjective human construct.

God could be frail, a baby, evil or even multiple gods.

What does Dyson say on the anthropic design argument?

"As we identify they many accidents of physics that have worked together for our benefit, it seems as if the universe knew we were coming."

What does Tennant say on cosmic fine-tuning in the design argument view?

"[The universe] seems to have been very finely adjusted to make life possible".

What is the Goldilocks effect in relation to the anthropic argument?

The universe is "just right" - the chance of life is 1/10^60, anything different wouldn't have resulted in the life we know.

Therefore, there is theoretically a 99.99.....% chance of design.

(However, we only know of this life as perfect as it is the only life we know - there could be other 'things' that we wouldn't call life but would've been equally momentous)

What is the world-making criticism of Paley?

We have nothing to compare our universe to - we have no experience of world-making or no idea if other random universes would be better or worse as we've only seen our own.

What is the weak anthropic principle in relation to design?

We are fine-tuned for the universe, not vice-versa.

What did A.J. Ayer say about design?

Our limited experiences mean we cannot tell the difference between real or fake design.

What is the Epicurean hypothesis in relation to design?

Order can come from chaos - If it takes enough time, 'chaos' (or randomly moving atoms) could eventually take an ordered form and stabilise as they are now - just like if you roll dice enough times, you'll eventually get all sixes.

This can be combined with the multiverse theory, in that if there are infinite universes, there will be stable ones like ours with intricacy.

What is the strong anthropic principle?

It is not a coincidence that the universe seems fine-tuned - it had to be that way, or no one would be around to experience it.

What is the multiverse theory?

If there are infinite or multiple universes, life becomes inevitable, not improbable - there are all possible universes and all universes possible for life.

What is a strength of Paley's teleological argument based on Flew's experience?

It leaves no other explanation than God - lifetime atheist Flew converted after seeing the complexity of the double helix in DNA.

What did Paul Davies argue in 'The Mind of God'?

Science has allowed us to better understand the world, and has allowed us to see how we are intricately connected within the universe. This beauty denotes intention and pattern.

Why is the design argument strong from the basis of induction?

Inductive arguments begin with observation; it is hard to deny the presence of order and complexity in the universe from our own experience.

Why would Dawkins oppose design?

It is unscientific - in his book 'The Blind Watchmaker', he argued that while Paley was working with the knowledge of the time, he didn't fully understand the eye, the earwig etc. They can all be accounted through via evolution now.

Maybe it is us that have become fine-tuned to the universe through evolution, not that the universe was fine-tuned to us.

What did Swinburne argue around design as Circular Reasoning?

Paley and Aquinas commit the fallacy of begging the question - this is a factor in all arguments that infer design. If a designer is simply something inferred, then the conclusion that there is a designer is assumed without proof. This makes the premise and conclusion just reworded versions of each other, and thus a fallacy.

Why may Paley's view be a logical fallacy?

Paley's view that regularity must come from somewhere bigger, along with the jump from a watch to an eye to God, seems to be a massive leap in logic. The regularity could've come from chaos, from us being fine-tuned or from chance; he makes too big of an assumption.

What did JSM argue about a designer?

If there was a designer, they would either be stupid or malevolent. If there is natural evil, then it is accountable to the designer.

If we assume there is a designer, then it cannot be the GOCT.

What is a counter to the idea the universe is 'stable'?

Not everyone sees the world as orderly, beautiful and purposeful - it has a lot of chaos and pointlessness.

How could Modal Realism be applied here?

This is the belief that every possible world 'exists' in some form, and that to understand this we have to go beyond our human plain of understanding. In that regard, the view that the world we are in is 'perfect' or 'very intricate' etc is extremely flawed -

Even if this world seems tuned for our form of life, what's to say that other 'things' beyond our imagination that we wouldn't call life but are equally as complex also exist out there in some form.

Summarise Aquinas' design argument.

Nature has order and purpose - nothing inanimate is purposeful without a guiding hand e.g. the sun can't decide to rise yet it does. The seeming purpose of inanimate objects suggests a guiding God.

Who was Hume?

An 18th century Scottish philosopher who was an atheist and sceptic. Unwilling to accept beliefs without empirical proof.

What was Hume's book criticising the teleological argument?

"Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" - Wrote as a discussion of three fictional characters arguing for natural theology, faith and Hume's views.

How did Hume criticise analogy in general?

- Analogy makes too big of a jump e.g. comparing circulation in an animal to sap in a plant.

- Analyses often aren't close enough and are limited from their points of similarity.

- Unless something is perfectly similar, you cannot draw fully certain conclusions.

How did Hume criticise using analogies of comparison for the universe?

There is nothing in the universe that it can be compared to. We do not have any experience out of the universe so can't compare it.

How did Hume suggest God could be through the housebuilder example?

- Just because a house has a builder and architect, does not mean the universe does.

- If it does and the house is faulty, then God would be responsible for our flaws.

- This could even suggest an 'apprentice God' - our universe could just be a 'first draft' - "The first rude essay of some infant deity who after abandoned it".

What is Hume's criticism regarding the assumption of the universe coming from an 'effect'?

We don't know for sure that the universe came from an 'effect'.

What question does Hume raise about the identity of the cause of the universe?

If there is a cause, why do we assume it is the Christian God?

What does Hume argue about the nature of God in relation to the universe?

Something as massive as an infinite God cannot be assumed or deduced from looking at effects.

What alternative possibilities does Hume suggest regarding the existence of deities?

It could be many gods or no god.

What analogy does Hume use to explain the uncertainty of inferring causes?

Scales - if one end is lifted, we cannot infer the amount or type of weight on the other side.

How does Hume relate the hidden nature of the universe's cause to his scales argument?

The cause of the universe seems to be hidden, so it can't just be inferred as the Christian God - like if you lift scales with one side hidden, you don't know whats on that side.

How does Hume criticise through the problem of amny deities?

- Machines and the universe are similar, but machines often have many designers.

- If we assume the universe is designed, it'd make more sense that it is designed by a team, not one God - Paley's intricacy could even reinforce this.

- Ship Analogy, we may look at a ship and say it is a great design however it may arise from trial and error.

- No evidence of perfect deity. Our universe may be one attempt of many.

How can Hume's analogies be criticised?

He himself said analogy is unreliable and then went on to use many for his criticisms; maybe he is missing the point of design.

Why may some of Hume's arguments fail?

His arguments seem to be more about showing a range of perspectives than coming to absolute judgements; this makes their utility questionable but nevertheless highlights very important flaws in the design argument.

Even if he does rule out the Christian God as a designer, he does not fully decide whether there is a designer or not, rather proposing many views on this matter.

What did Dawkins say the mistake of design was based on?

That complex things have a quality of proficiency to carry out an act to them. This makes them improbable to come out of a single act.

What did Dawkins argue instead of design?

Life occurred by chance at a very simple level and then adapted itself very gradually with the conditions it faced to reach the complexity it is at.

Complexity did not originate in a single creation event, it originated through our own fine tuning through natural selection. We started from simplicity and were fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around. This debunks the 'Goldilocks effect' of the anthropic argument.

What did Dawkins argue was special to nature as a 'watchmaker'?

It is blind, it does not have the proficiency for foresight that designed things have. It occurs through the "blind, unconscious and automatic" process of natural selection, with no plan and no vision.

What is the cosmological argument based on?

Cause & Effect, why is there something over nothing?

What propositions did Aquinas aim to explore in the cosmological argument?

- a-posteriori basis

- Starts from motion, change & causation.

- Something over nothing.

- Proving universe has a cause (God)

- God as an efficient cause and sustainer.

- Rejection of infinite regress

What were Aquinas' first three ways?

Motion - Everything changes, potentiality to actuality, must be a mover.

Causation - Everything has cause & effect, efficient cause, must be a causer.

Contingency - Everything is contingent, only God is necessary. We are dependent, God is the exception.

What was Aquinas' view on infinite regress and why may some counter?

- Unlimited events/cause and effect is not possible. Aquinas strongly rejected this.

But what about God? Isn't he infinite?

What example did Aquinas' give for motion?

Wood & fire - wood is actual, and to be on fire is potential. To actualise this, external influence via a lighter and oxygen is needed.

This external thing is necessary. aka God.

What was Aquinas' quote on his first way from motion?

"It is necessary to arrive at a first mover moved by no other, and this everyone understands to be God."

What was Aquinas' view on causation?

- Nothing is its own efficient cause.

- It would have to exist to make itself exist which is impossible.

- Must be first efficient cause aka God.

What was Aquinas' quote on the 2nd way (Causation)?

"It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God" (God is the uncaused causer).

What was Aquinas' view on contingency and necessity?

Contingent = dependent, not caused by itself. We are contingent.

Necessary = Not corruptible or generatable. Cannot NOT exist. Has to exist.

Contingent beings exist now but didn't and won't always exist, contrary to necessary beings.

What is Aquinas' quote on contingency and necessity?

"It is impossible for these always to exist, for that which cannot be, at the same time is not."

What is Aquinas' view on necessity including God of Classical Theism?

- Nothing comes from nothing, there must be something.

- This must have always been something necessary.

- This is the God of Classical Theism who creates, sustains and allows motion/change in the world.

- Would be nothing without this necessary God.

What question did Leibniz try to answer?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

How did Leibniz come to the conclusion of God?

- Everything that exists has an explanation for existing.

- We can say the Universe's explanation is God.

- The Universe exists.

- If the premise of all existing being explained and the universe existing are true, the universe's explanation must logically be God.

What did Russell say about the universe?

It just exists.

What is the 'ball' example to symbolise Leibniz's view on the universe?

If a ball is found, we'd assume it can be explained and has a cause. If this ball was grown to the size of the universe, we'd assume the same.

What did Leibniz split to explain the universe?

Contingent Beings - Caused by something, don't have to exist.

Necessary Beings - Exist by necessity, cannot not exist e.g. numbers.

It is logically possible for there to be no universe, therefore it is contingent.

If the universe is contingent, what did Leibniz say the cause must be?

A non-contingent, necessary being - God, who is immaterial, non-physical, beyond the universe and outside of space/time.

Could use other names than 'God'.

What is Leibniz's quote on the geometry book? (Paraphrased)

Let us suppose that a book on the elements of geometry has always existed, one copy made from another. Although we can explain a present copy from the previous copy, this will never lead us to a complete explanation.

What was Leibniz's view on infinite regress and why the world exists?

If nothing existed beside what is in the universe, there would be no explanation of why - things going back infinitely (infinite regress) proves nothing, therefore there must be a cause.

Even if we can explain the world through previous states and history, we don't know why it exists.

What is Leibniz's quote on infinite regress and existence's nature?

"However far back we might go into previous states, we will never find....a complete explanation (ratio) for why...there is any world at all and why it is the way it is".

Who was Leibniz?

German philosopher and mathematician.

What did Leibniz see the universe itself as?

A relationship of space/time rather than rigid rules and facts.

What is Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason?

- Everything that exists is caused.

- There must be a reason why it exists.

- There must be a reason why that statement is true.

- Therefore if something happens, it must be caused.

What does Leibniz say about knowing why something exists?

Whether we know or don't know why things exist, there must logically be a reason. It doesn't matter whether they are seemingly eternal or not, a reason is still needed e.g. the geometry books.

What does Leibniz say about eternal beings existing in his principle of sufficient reason?

Even if things are eternal like the universe seems to be, they would need a reason - this would have to transcend time and space and be necessary i.e. God, as an eternal universe via the PSR would be contingent on something outside it.

Whose argument on cosmological did Russell emulate?

Hume.

Whose arguments on cosmological did Copleston emulate?

Leibniz and Aquinas.

What was Copleston's view on the universe?

The chain of contingency must stop with a necessary being as all have reasons (Leibniz).

Who were Copleston and Russell?

Copleston - Jesuit Priest.

Russell - Agnostic Philosopher.

What was Russell's key view on the universe?

It is pointless to question existence, the universe is a brute fact that 'just is'. Just because things in it are caused and have meaning, does not mean this can be applied to the whole (fallacy of composition).

What was Russell's quote on the universe?

"Just because you have a mother, doesn't mean the universe does."

How did Copleston oppose Russell's idea that the universe and necessary beings are 'meaningless'?

Copleston said Russell must understand some of the meaning as he is talking about it.

What did Russell say about infinite regress?

It is possible - no reason to reject.

How did Hume criticise the cosmological argument through the fallacy of composition?

This is by attributing facts about parts toa whole e.g. saying that as we can see parts of the universe are caused and the universe is made of parts it must have a cause itself.

Hume used the example of 20 particles which can all be explained themselves but that doesn't mean the collective of particles is caused - explanation of the parts is sufficient.

How did some counter Hume's argument around fallacy of composition?

It makes sense to seek a full explanation of every 'thing' or series of things. Leibniz would say through the principle of sufficient reason that partial explanations are partial and that full explanations are valid to look for.

How does Hume criticise the cosmological argument through the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent?

The mind can't find effect in all causes - just because things can have causes and effects does not mean all do. Hume said there is no evidence of true cause/effect links other than assumptive, psychological links - cause/effect of the universe is beyond our epistemological limits. Also, we have no experience of universe-making.

How do some counter Hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument around cause and effect/fallacy of affirmation of the consequent?

Even if reason and experience can't demonstrate cause/effect, we need to trust in our senses - common sense dictates that we can infer cause/effect, this process drives the whole scientific method.

What was Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument around the possibility of the universe being eternal?

Hume said the universe could be an infinite chain if we assume cause/effect is real - why can't matter be eternal? There's no certainty that a 'first cause' is needed.

How do some counter Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument around the possibility of the universe being eternal?

Modern physics believes the universe as 13.7 billion years old. The dominant scientific belief is that the universe had a beginning; saying it is eternal seems counterintuitive.

How did Hume criticise the cosmological argument around necessary beings?

Necessary beings are not logical - cannot claim to exist without the contradictory claim they do not. How would a necessary being be uncaused? Also, questions need for a necessary being altogether.

How do some counter Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument around necessary beings?

Hume is misunderstanding God's nature - the nature that God cannot not exist. It is the fact that contingent objects can't provide the answer to their own existence that a God is necessary - God is the cause of itself.

How does Hume criticise the cosmological argument around the GOCT?

Like causes resemble like effects. Why isn't a finite God more likely if we are finite? What about a team of Gods or a male and a female God?

What is one counter to Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument regarding the knowledge of universes?

Lack of knowledge of universes beyond our own means we cannot assume similar causes and effects.

How does the concept of a one-off creation challenge Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument?

If creation is a one-off event, it doesn't need to be similar to our experience.

What question arises regarding the existence of multiple gods in the context of Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument?

If there are multiple gods, who created them?

Why does Hume argue the universe is brute fact?

It is incapable for us to explain further giving our epistemological links.

What extreme sceptic position does Hume take?

That cause/effect don't really exist - there is no evidence of their link, it is just perceived psychologically and is beyond our experience.