“Does the order of the universe prove that God exists”- ESSAY PLAN
Teleological
Introduction I will argue that teleological arguments do not prove the existence of
God
-strongest argument is Darwin's theory of evolution, directly
undermines the spatial order argument and provides a much more
coherent response than either cleanthes or Paley.
paley's watch Certain aspects of nature have the hallmark of design, indicating that
analogy there must be a divine designer. Watch has features of spatial order,
paley links these shared complexities in man-made and natural
objects and links this with a designer
Darwin's theory Undermines the claim that natural phenomena exemplifying the
of evolution hallmark of design does not necessarily entail it must have a designer,
instead(insert explanation of evolution by natural selection)
Say how this is a better explanation)
Swinburne's Accepts the grounds that spatial order may be explained by evolution,
argument from claims Darwins theory is an insufficient account from temporal order,
temporal order and cannot explain why the ‘laws’ of nature are they way they are
- Insert ‘personal explanation’ instead of science, wins by default
- (the sentence is here because i wrote it analogy)
Multiple We can use a variation of Hume's infinite time argument, and change
universes it to infinite universes. ‘Nature of infinity’, if there are enough universes
then it means one may have laws of nature which can support life
(gravity), coincidence and luck, non intentional
This may still be Swinburne may argue that existence of multiple universes may not
evidence for a negate the need for a divine creator. These universes exist in regular
designer order, so therefore the regularity in the temporal order of these
universes would still suggest the presence of a designer, even if the
designer is responsible for multiple universes.
As well as this- Why must the designer be god, it does not necessarily follow that the
the designer must be God, in many cases the designer is not the creator.
‘non-exhaustive’ Many other possible explanations.
nature of
swinburne's
argument
In this work, my main idea was to create a visual divide between a series of more complex and older
arc
Teleological
Introduction I will argue that teleological arguments do not prove the existence of
God
-strongest argument is Darwin's theory of evolution, directly
undermines the spatial order argument and provides a much more
coherent response than either cleanthes or Paley.
paley's watch Certain aspects of nature have the hallmark of design, indicating that
analogy there must be a divine designer. Watch has features of spatial order,
paley links these shared complexities in man-made and natural
objects and links this with a designer
Darwin's theory Undermines the claim that natural phenomena exemplifying the
of evolution hallmark of design does not necessarily entail it must have a designer,
instead(insert explanation of evolution by natural selection)
Say how this is a better explanation)
Swinburne's Accepts the grounds that spatial order may be explained by evolution,
argument from claims Darwins theory is an insufficient account from temporal order,
temporal order and cannot explain why the ‘laws’ of nature are they way they are
- Insert ‘personal explanation’ instead of science, wins by default
- (the sentence is here because i wrote it analogy)
Multiple We can use a variation of Hume's infinite time argument, and change
universes it to infinite universes. ‘Nature of infinity’, if there are enough universes
then it means one may have laws of nature which can support life
(gravity), coincidence and luck, non intentional
This may still be Swinburne may argue that existence of multiple universes may not
evidence for a negate the need for a divine creator. These universes exist in regular
designer order, so therefore the regularity in the temporal order of these
universes would still suggest the presence of a designer, even if the
designer is responsible for multiple universes.
As well as this- Why must the designer be god, it does not necessarily follow that the
the designer must be God, in many cases the designer is not the creator.
‘non-exhaustive’ Many other possible explanations.
nature of
swinburne's
argument
In this work, my main idea was to create a visual divide between a series of more complex and older
arc
