Arguments relating to the exisyence of God

Outline Hume’s design argument from analogy

Hume’s design argument attempts to establish the existence of a creator by analogy

P1: Human artefacts have certain ‘teleological’ properties - parts working towards a purpose

P2: Nature itself also has these same ‘teleological’ properties

P3: Human artefacts have these teleological properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being

P4: Similar effects/properties typically have similar causes/explanations

C1: Therefore, nature/natural entities have these teleological properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being (i.e. God).

Outline Paley’s design argument as an inductive argument [5]

Paley’s argument is an argument from analogy attempting to establish the existence of a creator

P1: In the organisation of parts for a purpose nature resembles the products of human design.

P2: Similar effects have similar causes.

P3: The cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design.

P4: A designer must be distinct from what is designed. C1: Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that (a) intended the design of the word, and (b) is distinct from what is designed.

C2: Therefore, an intelligent designer (God) exists

Outline Paley’s design argument as a deductive argument [5]

Paley’s second argument attempts to show that evidence of design in nature necessarily entails a designer(God)

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 (from Premises 1 and 2).

P3: Design can only be explained in terms of a designer. P4: A designer must: (a) be or have a mind; and (b) be distinct from what is designed.

C2: Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature (from Premises 3 and 4).

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

Outline Swinburne’s version of the argument from design [5]

Swinburnes argument is an abductive argument which establishes God as the best explanation for temporal order

P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order/regularities of succession (i.e. the regular and universal fundamental laws of nature).

P2: There are two possible hypotheses: (H1) temporal order has a scientific explanation; or (H2) temporal order has a personal explanation (e.g. explaining the singing of song over time in terms of the singer’s intentions).

P3: (H1) fails: science can only explain the existence of regularities of succession in terms of more fundamental regularities of succession. So, we cannot give a 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: (H2) can explain (fundamental) scientific regularities of succession. They are similar to regularities of succession produced by human agents (the singing of the song), 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, which is to say God.

C1: Therefore, God exists.

Hume’s objectios to design arguments

It is fallacious to say that nature itself is similar to objects that exist within nature - and analogy arguments lose their strength as dissimilarities grow

We are making poor induction: We have not seen the genesis of a Universe, and so have no evidence to stake our argument on. We only have one unique case to base our analogy on

If the entire universe was constructed with a purpose, then how come there are objects with conflicting purposes? (spatial disorder)

We can draw absurd conclusions from this analogy - a plethora of gods, iterative creation

Paley’s response to Hume’s refutations

Spatial order: it is sufficient to have one example of design for the deductive form of the argument to hold

Refutation of Paley’s deductive design argument (God is not the best explanation)

Evidence of design doesn’t necessarily entail a designer, because Evolution is conceiveable and offers evidence of design without a designer

Occums razon allows us to dismiss Paley’s argument as such