The concept of cause and effect means that one cannot have the effect without the efficient cause. This brings another item into being or causes something to change. The idea is that there can’t simply be a continuous weakening of ‘cause and effect’ and therefore there must be a first cause, it must be god. Therefore this is the second ‘proof’ that god exists.
The third way states that objects in the world have a dependence on something. We either or can’t exist depending on the existence of others i.e., we can only exist if our parents exist etc. However, god has an essential existence meaning that god must exist and he is not dependant on anything or one. Therefore if we need things to occur before we exist but god doesn’t, than it is logical to believe that god created the world out of nothing (ex nihilo).
The fourth way we can ‘prove’ that god exists is our knowledge of good and ad must derive from a maxim. We can only the different degrees of good because we have badly. We, as human beings, have the ability for both good and evil therefore we cannot be the maxim our selves. Therefore it makes sense that the ‘maximum of morality must be god, who is the perfect being.
Aquinas’ fifth and final way of proving the existence of god states that everything in the world has an innate sense of a design, a purpose. Things that do not have an innate sense of purpose, is usually guided or helped by something that does, such as and archer guiding an arrow. Like the arrow we all have an innate goal we all strive for, therefore this we, like the arrow, must be guided by god. We are like the arrow and the archer is god. Aquinas’ believed that things that had order in the world such as growth and planets, must have been created and designed by god, as we do not have the ability, the intelligence or the power to do something like rotating the earth and having a moon orbit it at the same time.
One of the teleological arguments next strength, the visible evidence that has also been mentioned by Aquinas. The argument is based on the way in which the world appears to be designed and so therefore the evidence for this is all around us. This means of what some claim to be evidence of design would therefore give great strength to the argument, (assuming of course one accepts that one really is being confronted with design in the first place).
A major problem with the design argument is the fact that whilst some of the universe may seem well designed there is much that could be considered bad design, natural disasters for example. This creates a whole host of problems with the main thrust being that with all of the features of bad design that we find, any designer or ‘blind watchmaker’ as Richard Dawkins put it, would possibly have to be either not wholly good or not wholly powerful. Mill chose to maintain God’s goodness, thus accepting that God was limited in some way, although Mill said he could not tell by what or by whom. If one of the aforementioned flaws in the designer is not the case then it is difficult to argue a case for the existence of a designer of a world, which exhibits so many elements of ‘bad design’.
David Hume put forward the thought that if it could be proved that there is design in our world, who is to say whether the Designer is not in fact referring to more than one designer, in other words designers. Hume also suggested that the designer(s) could be stupid or even downright evil, whatever the case may be it is hard to think of any of these properties could be proven. He also asked whether the order we see is imposed upon the chaos in which we live by humans, who insist upon finding a pattern and a meaning where non may exist.
In short the success of the Teleological Argument rests upon chance and individual judgement. The Teleological argument, as illustrated by the various criticisms of it, is by no means conclusive, if it was then everyone would know that God exists, as opposed to now when a significant number believe that God exists. If one believes that the universe is a product of blind chance then the Teleological Argument will not prove successful, as what it suggests as elements of design would instead be assigned as a product of chance. 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 whilst the Teleological 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.
To what extent can modern scientific theories be said to have disproved the claim that the modern universe has been designed?
As science develops it has raised more questions. The most famous to date has been Darwin’s studies that have suggested that the world and nature were not simply created instantly but have evolved over millions of years, through natural selection and mutations. Science is also considered to be used to support the design argument. There is nothing to say that the process of evolution is not the way in which God decided to create his design. If a pattern does exist, could it simply be nature’s way of surviving? Those who fit the pattern will survive and those who do not will perish. Who can say whether humans are not the survivors of a million failed worlds? If God does stands behind such a world, he is something far more mysterious than simply a clever watchmaker. Also, if some of the universe seems well designed, there is much of it, which is bad design, such as painful childbirth and death by accident. The question, which grand designer would create a race of dinosaurs to walk the Earth for millions of years and then simply destroys them? If natural disasters are added to this, earthquake, plague, volcanic eruption etc, one could question the wisdom and the goodness of the Designer (god). Even if one could prove the existence of a Designer who is to say, David Hume asked, whether there id more than one Designer, or the designer is stupid or evil? What we can say is that an intelligently designed universe cannot be proved, however, it is more probable than a universe, which is ruled by blind forces or by chance. How can the organization, consistency and sureness of our world be simply put down to a coincidence? Although a Designer cannot be proved to exist it is a more reasonable and acceptable explanation of the evidence that we have than any other.
Darwin’s studies in evolution are not as kind and lucky as we may have frankly imagined at a time when the creation story in Genesis was taken literally. The alternative offered by Darwin is a ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, which is result of chance mutations or selections over millions of years, which is still evolving. Even if a pattern should eventually emerge in the future it does not necessarily mean it would bolster the strength of the design argument for any pattern could simply be nature’s way of surviving. Perhaps those who fit this pattern survive, whilst the rest perish. It could even be that human race is the survivor of a million failed worlds. One may also question the use of analogy, which can be found in many forms of the Design Argument. It is quite right to say that we are not comparing like with like and so one could conclude that the use of analogy fails as a result.
In conclusion I personally believe that the introduction of modern scientific theories, through the years have managed to disprove many people’s beliefs that the universe has been designed. The introduction of these theories has planted an element of doubt into people’s minds (those who believe in the teleological theory). The new theories provide a much more logical explanation of the creation of the universe. To be fair, however, all the theories brought by previous philosophers such as Paley and Aquinas their theories may have produced answer for their present situation. However, for our discoveries and situations that we are faced in, the scientific theories that are presented to us seem more logical. Who knows whether the current scientific theories will last, considering there is are new discoveries all over the world, which calls for new theories to be made.
