Examine the design argument for the existence of God.

Authors Avatar

(a) Examine the design argument for the existence of God.

In this essay, I will be focusing on the different variations of the design argument, as expressed by Paley, as well as the version expressed by Hume, through Cleanthes, and its modern version in the form of the Anthropic Principle. I will describe the ideas of design ‘qua regularity’ and design ‘qua order’; explaining what each means. I will also attempt to deconstruct the design argument and identify both its strengths and weaknesses, though this will form part (b) of my essay. I will then draw my own conclusion in response to the design argument.

 The design argument is also known as the teleological argument. This argument attempts to prove the existence of God, using analogy. The teleological argument is that of an a posteriori nature, as its basic form comes from the idea that we can deduce knowledge from what we know or have sense of, in this case, the existence of the universe. Even before the Greek philosophers, people have presumed that the natural order of the universe – and the way in which it works, i.e.the changing season, the intricacy of an eyeball, the complexity of the human brain – serves as evidence of a designer (who is often asserted to be God).

The design argument has been expressed in two ways – ‘design qua regularity’, and ‘design qua purpose’. Firstly, we will focus on design qua regularity. This aspect looks at design in relation to the order and regularity in the universe. Philosophers who support the argument would believe that it is evident that there is some sort of order in the universe - for example, the rotation of the planets – and that it cannot have occurred by random chance. This therefore suggests existence of a creator: God. St. Thomas Aquinas argues from design qua regularity in the fifth of his five ways, identifying that the way in which ‘natural bodies’ act in a regular fashion provides the evidence for the existence of a creator: ‘…there must be some intelligent being who directs all things to the purpose for which they exist. This being we call god.’

 The other part of the argument – design qua purpose – looks at the evidence of design in relation to the complexity of everything in the universe and that things work because they have a purpose. This is used as evidence for a designer (God), as a purpose would imply that something or someone has given an object that purpose.

I will begin by outlining William Paley’s version of the design argument. Paley puts forward the most famous form of the design argument, using analogy. Paley presented the following situation; in order to consolidate his argument: ‘…In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that for any thing I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever…But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before give, that for any thing I knew the watch might have always been there…when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive – what we could not discover in the stone – that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…’.

The first part of Paley’s argument is design qua purpose – and is to show that there must be a purpose. Paley’s analogy attempts to compare the universe to a watch; and states that the watch is so complex – it has parts that all work together and it itself works and is in motion (much like the universe) and because the watch is so complex and is in motion; it is logical to ask who or what created this machine; and we can presume that there was a designer – or shall we say, a watchmaker. Paley used the idea that like effects have like causes, and therefore came to the conclusion that the universe had a universe-maker – asserted, by Paley, to be God. But Paley also mentions a stone – and that questioning where the stone came from is different – as the stone has no complexity, does not change, is not in constant motion, and seems to have no purpose; therefore, it is acceptable to presume that the stone had existed forever.

Join now!

The second part of the argument for the existence of God is design qua regularity – Paley used evidence from astronomy and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity to prove that there is design in the universe. The universal laws, such as gravity and the rotation of the planets, were for Paley, evidence that the universe had not been an accident; as they provide the universe with order and regulation. Paley argues that this order and regulation is so complex that the universe can’t have come about by chance; and that it implies a universe-maker in the same way that ...

This is a preview of the whole essay