‘The Design argument is a weak argument for the existence of God’.
Evaluate this statement:
Some Fundamentalist Christians may disagree with the statement because the
design argument suggests that our world is very complex, for example, the human
eye-it cannot have designed and manufactured itself as it is too complex, so it must
have been carefully and intricately designed in a specific way, therefore if it was
designed, there must be a designer, as complex things such as the human eye do
not just come into existence. This designer must be infinitely intelligent, so the
designer must be God.
Some Christians may refer to William Paley’s watch analogy to support this idea, the
watch is complicated, it must have a designer, he compares the watch to the world,
the world is even more complex, therefore it also must have a designer, and the only
being who could have been capable of designing the world had to be God as in the
Bible it refers to God as ‘..the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth’, and in
the Psalms it says; ‘Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is
infinite.’ These quotes show the omniscient and omnipotent nature of God, therefore
the Design argument proves God exists.
Moreover, although the Theory of Evolution suggests a way of understanding that
does not necessarily mean the world was designed by someone, the Anthropic
principle is a development of the Design argument, and is a suggestion that the
universe is set up for the development of intelligent life -humans, who are the
pinnacle of God’s creation- so provides a way in which ideas of evolution and belief
in the existence of God work together.
In addition to this, the chances of Earth being uniquely placed in the solar system so
that it can support life is almost impossible. The complexity of this points to the fact
that our world was designed and must have been created by a loving God.
Some people may agree with the statement because complexity does not
necessarily mean design. The theory of evolution shows a way of understanding how
species develop without reference to a designer God and become complex over
time.
Some may argue that there is evidence of moral and natural evil happening in the
world, for example, tsunamis, earthquakes where innocent people suffer and die. If
God had designed the world, He would not have let this happen as he is
omnibenevolent, therefore it could be concluded that God is a bad designer, or He
does not exist at all, so the Design Argument is weak in proving the existence of
God.
Furthermore, there are many flaws in the design argument and David Hume points
out that the world was ‘... only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who
afterward abandoned it, ashamed of his performance.’. This suggests that God is a
limited designer, who abandoned us after He created the world. Even though this
does not necessarily mean that God doesn’t exist, the design argument is not strong
enough to justify God’s existence as it contradicts his benevolent nature. A
Evaluate this statement:
Some Fundamentalist Christians may disagree with the statement because the
design argument suggests that our world is very complex, for example, the human
eye-it cannot have designed and manufactured itself as it is too complex, so it must
have been carefully and intricately designed in a specific way, therefore if it was
designed, there must be a designer, as complex things such as the human eye do
not just come into existence. This designer must be infinitely intelligent, so the
designer must be God.
Some Christians may refer to William Paley’s watch analogy to support this idea, the
watch is complicated, it must have a designer, he compares the watch to the world,
the world is even more complex, therefore it also must have a designer, and the only
being who could have been capable of designing the world had to be God as in the
Bible it refers to God as ‘..the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth’, and in
the Psalms it says; ‘Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is
infinite.’ These quotes show the omniscient and omnipotent nature of God, therefore
the Design argument proves God exists.
Moreover, although the Theory of Evolution suggests a way of understanding that
does not necessarily mean the world was designed by someone, the Anthropic
principle is a development of the Design argument, and is a suggestion that the
universe is set up for the development of intelligent life -humans, who are the
pinnacle of God’s creation- so provides a way in which ideas of evolution and belief
in the existence of God work together.
In addition to this, the chances of Earth being uniquely placed in the solar system so
that it can support life is almost impossible. The complexity of this points to the fact
that our world was designed and must have been created by a loving God.
Some people may agree with the statement because complexity does not
necessarily mean design. The theory of evolution shows a way of understanding how
species develop without reference to a designer God and become complex over
time.
Some may argue that there is evidence of moral and natural evil happening in the
world, for example, tsunamis, earthquakes where innocent people suffer and die. If
God had designed the world, He would not have let this happen as he is
omnibenevolent, therefore it could be concluded that God is a bad designer, or He
does not exist at all, so the Design Argument is weak in proving the existence of
God.
Furthermore, there are many flaws in the design argument and David Hume points
out that the world was ‘... only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who
afterward abandoned it, ashamed of his performance.’. This suggests that God is a
limited designer, who abandoned us after He created the world. Even though this
does not necessarily mean that God doesn’t exist, the design argument is not strong
enough to justify God’s existence as it contradicts his benevolent nature. A
