Payley’s argument is inductive and it has its strengths because it is a reasonable interpretation of existence and easily understandable. Hume’s argument does offer a strong counter attack to Paley’s theory so Hume’s argument is a reasonable interpretation and a cumulative force of a different design argument. It’s hard to determine which is a better theory though.
In support of Hume’s idea, that the universe came about by chance, comes an argument from Richard Dawkins who is also an atheist. He believes that God did not create the universe but it produced and progressed through evolution and that "Life is too complex to be due to chance" so he definitely accepts Charles Darwin’s theory. One strength of this argument is that each time scientific evidence is brought into light the theory gets stronger. Support from science is a high advantage because it shows the implications of evolution in a reliable way.
In contrast there is Richard Swinburne who argues that a fact needs to be explained by both materialism and theism to show that the world is orderly. The existence and regular behaviour of material objects provide good evidence for the existence of God, says Swinburne. God made an orderly world to make it suitable as possible for humans. He (uncritically) accepts Paley's argument from design: "This analogy of animals to complex machines seems to be correct, and its conclusion justified.” (By conclusion he means that animals and humans must have had God as their designer). However, he says, this argument does not give any reason to suppose that God made humans and animals on one particular day in history, rather than through a gradual process of evolution. (This is in direct conflict with the creation story in Genesis). Remarkably he accepts Darwinism as told by Richard Dawkins, including the involvement of chance in evolution. It seems to be in conflict with his own statement that chance cannot produce beautiful adapted organisms (Paley's argument from design).
The strength of Swinburne’s analysis is the fact that he is not speaking as the theologian arguing from a basic story line but is rather speaking as a distinguished professor of philosophy from Oxford University, working well within the boundaries of his own discipline, acknowledging the data of all the sciences, making it a relevant to the subject. Swinburne has used his hypothesis and said nothing whatsoever of his defence of why God, by definition, would likely be motivated in the creation of an orderly, universe.
Widely thought to have been demolished by Hume and Darwin was the teleological argument for God's existence which nonetheless continued during this century to find defenders such as F.R. Tennant. He provided an idea of "wider teleology," which emphasized the necessary conditions for the existence and evolution of intelligent life, rather than specific instances of purposive design.
Overall each argument can provide a clear and plausible piece of evidence to backup the theory of which it argues. There are huge juxtapositions between the arguments that collide, and this shows that there are many different beliefs of how the cosmos was created. It also shows that there are many explanations, but none of them show 100 percent proof that that idea is correct. However, if the argument didn’t have a strength connected with it then it would be much harder to believe and understand.
(B) Comment on the view that the weaknesses are more convincing than the strengths
As well as there are several strengths to the different arguments I have examined there also weaknesses that come with them which can sometimes seem more convincing than the strength. The idea that the universe is designed is subjective, meaning that there are many different ideas about it. Different observations in the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon an analogy. If we find things in the universe that are troublesome, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer.
Another weakness of some arguments, for example Payley’s or Swinburne’s, is that scientific data can support the opposing argument. However this offers more acceptance and sustainability to the other opposing argument, leaving the likes of Payley’s and Swinburne’s argument less believable. I think this is true because the more evidence there is, the more valid the ideology is.
It has also been argued that the creation of the universe could just happening by random chance is very inevitable. However, someone could oppose that idea and say that it is as plausible as an explanation. There is also a contrast between the movements from designer to God. When they say a designer do they mean God or something else? It sometimes hard to define what point the philosopher is trying to make.
Coming to a conclusion I have identified that the weaknesses can sometimes seem more appealing than the strengths. To decide whether the view is a more convincing weakness or strength you have to decide whether the view is acceptable by seeing if the design could be due to chance, looking at how valid it is to move from a designer to the idea of God and if the argument is better as part of a cumulative argument. Overall both the weaknesses and the strengths are fairly in balance with each other, therefore causing the argument to be acceptable. If the argument just happened to be unbalanced with just strengths or weaknesses then it would be hard to justify the means of the idea with society.
