Design argument
- Created by: harrysidneyjack
- Created on: 23-02-22 14:13
View mindmap
- Design argument
- William Paley
- Paley believed Biological things had an indication of a designer (God)
- Paley made a test which can distinguish things designed with purpose and things without purpose (things which just happen to be)
- As an example, Paley put forth a story:
- Imagine going for a walk one day, only to stumble upon two things - a watch and a rock.
- If you were to ask yourself do these two thing appear here by chance, or by design?
- You could say, the rock, because of its simple nature, could be here by chance.
- However, the watches complicated mechanisms, like its several parts framed and put together and its ability to tell time has to be here for a purpose.
- So if something has purspose, and it has parts which work together for that purpose, then it passes 'the test for design'.
- However, the watches complicated mechanisms, like its several parts framed and put together and its ability to tell time has to be here for a purpose.
- You could say, the rock, because of its simple nature, could be here by chance.
- If you were to ask yourself do these two thing appear here by chance, or by design?
- Imagine going for a walk one day, only to stumble upon two things - a watch and a rock.
- As an example, Paley put forth a story:
- Paley made a test which can distinguish things designed with purpose and things without purpose (things which just happen to be)
- What if we were to apply his test to biology?
- How about the eye, which has several parts to it, all of which work together for a purpose (to see)
- Paley argues Biology must be designed by God
- How about the eye, which has several parts to it, all of which work together for a purpose (to see)
- Paley believed Biological things had an indication of a designer (God)
- David Hume
- Hume thinks the design argument fails to make the link to God
- You cant argue because one thing has been desgined with purpose, that everything else is
- Fallacy of composition
- Just becuase we know why thing on earth have purpose, it does not apply ti a grander scale of things, as our knowledge of the universe is very limited
- Fallacy of composition
- You cant argue because one thing has been desgined with purpose, that everything else is
- He further argues, relating our understanding of the purpose to God is Anthroporphism (seeing a non-human as human)
- Our experience of design is limited to the machines we design ourselves, so in effect we are imagining God to be like a human designer
- If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then Paleys bioligcal design is faulty, becuase the eye can be blind or require glasses
- Our experience of design is limited to the machines we design ourselves, so in effect we are imagining God to be like a human designer
- Hume thinks the design argument fails to make the link to God
- Charls Darwin
- People nowaday favour Darwin's theory of Evolution
- William Paley
Comments
No comments have yet been made