"The Design Argument fails because of its weaknesses" Examine and comment on this claim
"The Design Argument fails because of its weaknesses" Examine and comment on this claim
The Design Argument does fail due to its weaknesses, it is lacking in factual and substantial evidence to prove its theories. It puts forward a lot of ideas and claims however they are not justified well enough; the only true fact is that you have to believe them. I feel it is correct to claim that it fails due to the amount of criticising evidence against the theories for the existence of God.
The main philosopher to criticise and object to the Teleogical Argument was David Hume. He looked at every point towards the existence towards a creator and designer and then thought logically about the condemnation and came up with rebuttals. He realised that most of the arguments put forward just relied on the reader to use their faith and belief to consider it and assume it was correct with no real evidence, just connections and assumptions.
The first objection he made was about the theory where Paley uses his analogy about a watch. Hume clearly uses his logic here by describing his own example of a human hair. He says that if we look at a piece of hair, this tells us nothing as a whole of the human. This is the same with the world, studying small parts will not tell us about the world as a whole. He links this towards Paley because this is exactly what he does. He looks at the interior of a watch and then somehow links it to the world. I feel this is too big a link to make; linking a small mechanical object towards a multifarious and complex world in which millions of tasks are carried out at once. Just because a designer has created a watch does not mean the world has a creator too. It would be like saying a piece of paper is used for many functions and has a creator so therefore the world must have a multifunctional creator too. He then compares a watch against a floating vegetable. "A clock to a large organic mass is not possible to compare. It would be better to compare it to an immense floating object." He is stating how absurd it is that a small simple item could be linked to such a powerful designer. You cannot link a watch towards something, which is a far more superior, and multitasking being. Like many of these assumptions they are lacking concrete evidence to prove it, it is just a theory and therefore weakens the argument towards the existence of a creator.
The Design Argument does fail due to its weaknesses, it is lacking in factual and substantial evidence to prove its theories. It puts forward a lot of ideas and claims however they are not justified well enough; the only true fact is that you have to believe them. I feel it is correct to claim that it fails due to the amount of criticising evidence against the theories for the existence of God.
The main philosopher to criticise and object to the Teleogical Argument was David Hume. He looked at every point towards the existence towards a creator and designer and then thought logically about the condemnation and came up with rebuttals. He realised that most of the arguments put forward just relied on the reader to use their faith and belief to consider it and assume it was correct with no real evidence, just connections and assumptions.
The first objection he made was about the theory where Paley uses his analogy about a watch. Hume clearly uses his logic here by describing his own example of a human hair. He says that if we look at a piece of hair, this tells us nothing as a whole of the human. This is the same with the world, studying small parts will not tell us about the world as a whole. He links this towards Paley because this is exactly what he does. He looks at the interior of a watch and then somehow links it to the world. I feel this is too big a link to make; linking a small mechanical object towards a multifarious and complex world in which millions of tasks are carried out at once. Just because a designer has created a watch does not mean the world has a creator too. It would be like saying a piece of paper is used for many functions and has a creator so therefore the world must have a multifunctional creator too. He then compares a watch against a floating vegetable. "A clock to a large organic mass is not possible to compare. It would be better to compare it to an immense floating object." He is stating how absurd it is that a small simple item could be linked to such a powerful designer. You cannot link a watch towards something, which is a far more superior, and multitasking being. Like many of these assumptions they are lacking concrete evidence to prove it, it is just a theory and therefore weakens the argument towards the existence of a creator.