paleys purpose design watch

inductive , posteriori

summarise argument (10) A01

if we found watch on shore- correctly assume it has purpose

purpose depends on exact intricacy and and precise arrangement of parts in relation to each other

complexity itself is not enough-eg pattern of sand on beach is v intricate but dos not indicate intentional design

but if we came across sand castle,complex arrangement of sand serves a purpose - so unlickely to occur by chance its more reasonable to infer design.

we can infer purpose when thing has property of purpose enabled by complexity

these things to observe in watch we observe in nature eg. human eye designed to see

therefore nature must have a designer

nature is much grander and greater therfore so must be designer

futhermore, a designer is a mind which is distinct from what is designed

so , a mind which desiged the world and is distinct from it exists

the status as proof of the design argument ( anological reasoning- form of inductive reasoning) AO1

design arguemnts are posteriori ( based on existence)

e.g paleys argument is based on our observation of purpose enabled complexity in the world

design arguments are mainly deductive , meaning premise could be true, conclusion false

the truth of premise provides evidence that supports conclusion , but does not logically garuntee it

such arguments are typically made by empiricists, the empistological theory (knowlege is gained from the evidence of experience ) - therefore not logically certain

this is bc they are defeasible (further discoverable evidence could make them false,change overall weight of balance of evidence towards diff conclusion

arguments can be made by attacking truth of premise or denying truth that follows

if cause of x is directly inexperinceable, we can use evidence of likeness to y ( whose nature we can observe) to draw probalistic inference abt nature of x cause

AQUINAS used inductive posterior arguments for theological purposes as part of his natural theology

they cannot, and r not intended to prove specifically the christian god

the aim is to show that the evidence points towards a designer

this supports faith in the christain god, since evidence for generic god increases probablity of specific god

validity of an anology + counter and evaluate A02

swinburn supports dsign arguments arguing the analogical argument is scientifically valid- it is rational to hypothesise the cause of x is analogical to the cause of y

deisn argument employ exactly the same form of inductive reasoning

things in nature are like things humans create, therfore the cause of those natural things in analogous

counter

hume objects that like effects do not imply like causes eg. fire and dry ice both have smoke but are not alike

so , things in nature being like a watch does not prove their causes are alike eg. intelligent mind

hume further argues it does not provide even probablistic evidence

becuase of significant disanologies, there is not even probablistic evidence:

artefacts are mechanically, mathmatically constructed whereas the universe is a messy organic thing that is far less precise.

so analogy between watches/arrows and behaviour of birds/flowers is weak

hume’s critic - god not the only explanation AO2

Epicurean hhypothesis and the multiverse AO2

strength and weakness of design argument AO1