What are they key features of the design argument for the existence of God? Identify the strengths of the argument - To what extent are the strengths more convincing than the weaknesses?

that have been fitted together (by a designer) for a specific purpose.

Many philosophers have contributed to the design argument with their own

understanding of it and their own ways of explaining it. Perhaps the most well

known among them is William Paley. Paley offered us an analogy to try to

explain the argument. He put it to us that if we were to find a stone on the

ground, and were asked why it was there, we would think it had laid there

forever. However, if we were to find a watch on the ground, and were asked

the same question, we would reply that it was there because somebody had

designed it. Paley says that the stone on the ground is no different to the

watch, as each as been designed. The stone, and more widely speaking, the

whole universe has been designed by a “Great Architect”: God.

St Thomas Aqunias believed that “some intelligent being exists by whoom all

natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” He stated

that anything that lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end but must be

directed towards that end by God. Aquinas is arguing from the design qua

regularity point of view.

Another philosopher who contributed to this argument is F. R. Tennant. He

contrived the “Aesthetic Argument.” This declares that the appreciation of

beauty, art, poetry are not necessary for the survival of humanity or the

development of life. Therefore man is not simply a product of evolution and

natural selection but a specific design. Simply put, he says the fact that the

universe is saturated with beauty suggests that it can’t just have happened-

there must have been a designer- again, God.  

The Anthropic Principle, again developed by Tennant, is a more scientific (n.b

Anthropic: linked to science) method of supporting the design argument. The

conditions of chemicals and gasses at the time of creation where in just the

right proportions for the development of human life. If these values had been

even just a tiny bit different then this would not have been possible. With this

in mind we are encouraged to conclude that, with such a minute chance, surely

the universe must have been designed.

There are weaknesses in the design argument that can be expressed. The basis

of the argument “There is order in the universes, the universe has been

designed, God has designed the universe” is an a posteriori argument. The

universe certainly isn’t ordered in the same perfect way as a watch is ordered.

This shows Paley’s analogy to be flawed. For example how can the world be in a

state of perfect order when we have what is called “natural evil” in the world.

Is nature not sometimes chaotic, not ordered? How does the design argument

explain earthquakes and other natural disasters? We are told that God is

benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. If God created nature in such an

ordered and perfect way, then why would he allow these aspects of it into his

“divine plan”? The “Epicurean Hypothesis” argues that the universe began as

chaotic but gradually became ordered as it stabilized. (Chemistry tells us that

all elements “want” to become more stable. That is why they react together if

they are unstable or volatile.) Therefore stability and order are nothing to do

with God at all but simply scientific fact.

An interesting criticism of the design argument, put forward by David Hume,

is that humans do not have enough knowledge to recognize that there is only one

designer. In fact there could have been many Gods or designers that created

the universe. To explain this theory he uses the analogy of manufactured

objects. Machines are usually designed by a team of designers working

together, not just one designer.

Immanuel Kent also challenges the foundations of the argument. The argument

presupposes that there is regularity, order and purpose in the universe.  Kant

emphasises the fact that the universe may be in utter chaos but, because of the

way our minds organise our experiences, the world around us appears to be

ordered, but we impose the design on the world ourselves, and cannot be

certain of the reality of the situation. Possibly we could compare our world or

our universe to another and then discover the truth of the situation. However,

this is seemingly impossible. Using this argument, which cannot ever be

disproved, we bring the discussion back into the realms on non-realism, in

which there are no absolutes beyond our own perception.

Richard Dawkins disagrees with the fundamental principle of the argument

that the universe has a designer. He reduces it to science, by arguing that any

variations in the universe are caused by random mistakes in the DNA.

Despite these many flaws in the argument, it still has many strengths. The

Telelogical Argument was described by Immanuel Kent as the oldest, clearest,

and most reasonable argument for the existence of God even though he himself

admitted to finding it personally unconvincing. Part of the argument’s strength

lies in its simplicity. It is easy to relate to the argument as humans are

themselves designers by nature. It is natural for humans to think of things as

having a purpose.

The argument also makes good use of analogy. Whether this is using a watch,

television or an acorn, using concrete images to explain abstract ideas aids our

understanding of the argument by placing it within a context that can be easily

understood.

Some have also cited the argument’s strength comes from its relation with

religious materials, for example the creation story. “In the beginning God

created the heavens and the earth.” For believers in God, this confirms and

cements their beliefs.

In conclusion, the success of the Design Argument rests upon probability and

individual judgment. The Design Argument, as illustrated by the various

criticisms of it, is by no means conclusive, if it was then everyone would know

that God exists. If you believe that the universe is a product of blind chance

then the  design argument will not be strong enough to change your beliefs. I.e.

it won’t convince an atheist.  However, the idea of the universe just being here,

a brute fact, a product of blind chance and nothing more is a personally

unsatisfactory one due to the extraordinary nature of the universe and so

whist the Design Argument may not conclusively prove the existence of God it

suggests that the existence of a Designer, who we know as God, is a more

probable likelihood than not.