ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Key Terms:
Premises= Proposition
Inductive Reasoning (posteriori): process of recognising/observing patterns. Established in 4 stages
1. Observation- collect facts, without bias
2. Analysis- classify the facts. Identifying patterns of regularity
3. Inference- infer generalisation
4. Confirmation- testing the inference through further observation
5. Conclusion must be argued to yield probability and not proof
Deductive Reasoning (priori): begins with the general and ends with the specific e.g., all men are
mortal, Socrates is a man and therefore Socrates is mortal.
The Design Argument (an inductive argument from analogy)
Key text - Natural Theology
key quotation - ‘every manifestation of design in the watch, exist in the work of nature; with the
difference on the side of nature of being greater’
An analogy is inference where information is transferred from one subject to another, Paley transfers
his inference about the organisation and design of watches to the organisation and design of nature.
Paley’s Analogy;
1. A watch has complex parts, each with a function, and the parts work together for a specific
purpose.
2. So, the watch must have been designed by a watch maker
3. Similarly, the universe has parts that function together for a purpose
4. So, the universe must have been designed by a universe maker
5. The universe is a far more wonderful design than a watch, so its designer is much greater
than any human designer.
6. The universe designer is God.
“For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists
in the works of nature with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more”
Paley's argument is based on three observations about the world:
● Its complexity- he looks at the complexities of the natural world e.g., biological organisms
and organ (e.g., eye) and also looks at the complexities of the laws of nature by which it is
governed
● Its regularity- he observes the regularity of the orbits of comets, moons and planets and of
seasons of the year
● Its purpose- he observes machines and infers they are built for a purpose. The complexity
and regularity of a watch implies that it has a purpose even if that purpose is unknown.
Therefore, the complexity and regularity of the world implies it has a purpose
The features of the Watch:
,ORDER: The watch functions owing to the successful order to which it was created. COMPLEX:
Because there are several parts, the watch is deemed complex.
INTERACTION: Parts interact with each other and have responsibilities towards each other.
PURPOSE: Given these responsibilities, the watch can be said to have a total purpose – to tell the
time. These things could not have come about of their own accord. There must be a designer of this
watch, (as there would be for any watch).
The features of the World:
ORDERED – we can see that there are distinct patterns and rhythms to nature, as well as ecosystems.
COMPLEX – there are billions of species of animal and plant in the world.
INTERACTION: Things in the world interact with one another.
PURPOSE: Things do seem to act for individuated purpose – each
animal, for example, does its own thing. In the same manner by which we viewed the watch, it
seems sensible and even logical to say that there is a designer of
the world.
“There is the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made
for assisting it”
FR Tennant supports Paley’s argument and uses the Anthropic Principle to support it. The boundary
conditions are fined to tuned and have all aligned against all the odds hence there must be
something that must have designed it to bring about intelligent beings.
Further support from John Polkinghorne (a physicist and contemporary Anglican priest) ‘science
shows us a universe that is deeply intelligible’
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher who was empiricist, a sceptic and probably an atheist. He
criticised the design argument before Paley wrote his version so Hume’s not directly criticising Paley’s
work. Paley had knowledge of Hume’s work as he had read at least one of his works.
Hume’s Criticism (Swinburne’s Reply for each of Hume’s Criticisms):
1. If the world was designed, there is no evidence to support that this is the all-powerful
Christian God. It could be a lesser being. There could be multiple designers.
The principle of Ockham’s razor says that we should always accept the simplest explanation. There is
no reason to say that there is more than one designer. Also, we see no evidence to suggest that there
are many designers; the law of gravity, for example, is universal.
2. The existence of evil and imperfection in the world points out to a flawed/limited designer.
Perhaps God is dead. Perhaps God made many worlds before he got it right. Hume ‘many
worlds botched and bungled’. Richard Dawkins talks about the ‘blind watchmaker’
The existence of evil does not affect the teleological argument because it does not seek to prove the
benevolence and omnipotence of God.
3. Analogy between the universe and machines are unsound. Why can’t we think of it has an
organism that grows and reproduces instead.
,A vegetable only grows because the laws of biochemistry apply. We have to ask what generated
those laws?
4. The argument anthropomorphises God- makes him too much like a human being.
God does not have to share all the attributes of human designers. In order to control the regularities
of the universe, God must be free, rational and very powerful, but cannot have a body since that
would restrict Him. He is therefore very different from human designers.
5. The universe could have developed into other by chance (the Epicurean Thesis); there are
periods of chaos and order; we happen to be living in a period of order.
The view that the universe is a product of chance becomes less believable as time progresses and
order remains.
6. If the world was designed, who designed the designer?
There is no reason to suppose that the cause of order in the universe requires an external
explanation for itself. He created the laws of the universe; He does not have to follow them Himself.
7. The analogy of human design and God is poor as the universe is unique and we can’t arrive
at conclusions about its origins.
It is not unreasonable to ask questions about something that it unique. Scientists do it all the time.
Also, the universe may be unique, but it has things in common with its parts; for example, like many
of its parts, it changes, is composed of material elements and exhibits regularity. Anyway, all things
are unique to some extent.
8. We can only be sure that the designer has the same qualities required for the design and no
other so we can’t claim things about God unless they are directly apparent in the Universe’s
design. Hume argued that it was impossible to draw conclusions about the whole from a
small part.
Even if God has more attributes than we can tell from the design of the universe, the universe at
least provides some support for His existence. We can assume that a being that created the universe
is powerful, incorporeal (without a body) because it exists outside the universe and it is purposive (it
creates order).
As pointed out by JS Mill in his book ‘On Nature’, Paley is selective with his evidence. The amount of
evil and suffering caused by nature is irreconcible with the idea of an omnibenevolent designer.
Dawkins - evolution and natural selection explains the illusion of design. There is no intelligent
designer. ‘Natural selection is the watchmaker’. the world was not designed for us, we adapted to it.
It is argued that Paley’s analogy does not work, you cannot infer information from a watch to the
universe.
The status of Paley’s argument as ‘proof’
● Proof can mean ‘sufficient evidence for a proposition’, as in ‘proof of guilt’
● probable not absolute proof
● paley uses evidence and reasoning
● Proof can be inductive which can be scientific status (e.g., water boils 100) but Paley’s
argument amounts to be a reasonable inductive probability
, ● Paley’s argument can be seen as the best argument for the order that we see so his
argument is still powerful
● Blaise Pascal - ‘metaphysical proofs for the existence of God are so remote from human
reasoning and so complex that they have little impact’
● Some hold that proof can only come from the certainty that people find in faith e.g., religious
experience, this is only proof to the person that experiences it.
● Proof can be deductive as in Anselm’s ontological argument. Paley's argument is inductive so
it can never amount to deductive/logically certain proof
● Many theologians e.g., Aquinas agree (Aqainas has his own version of the design argument)
● Even if proves design, annot prove who the designer is
The relationship Between Reason and Faith
● Some see faith in God as unreasonable as they believe in truth in science/empirical. The
belief in God can be a reasonable hypothesis based on evidence from observation of the
universe, appearance of order and design.
● For others, only faith gives certainty
● Fideism can be seen as justifying absurd beliefs (such as Linus’ belief in the Great Pumpkin)
● H.H Price distinguishes between belief that God exists and belief in God, Belief in God is
evaluative, whereas belief that God exists is nothing but acceptance of an existential
proposition
● Belief in God is about religion, belief in God’s existence is reasonable but reason doesn’t take
us as far as faith
● Pope John Paul 11 argues that truth can only be known through a mixture of faith and
reason. Excluding the importance of either one reduces the ability to understand the truth.
fide et ratio
The Value of Paley's Design Argument for Religious Faith
● Supports faith by reasoning matching Pope John Paul 11’s view that faith and reason should
be mutually supportive and not exclusive
● John Polkinghorne ‘faith is motivated belief, based on evidence’
● Paley’s argument gives theists a ‘reasoned defence of their faith’ as it is rationally and
empirically based
● Forms a reasonable defence of religious faith against atheism, which has no more evidence
for the non-existence of God than Paley did for God’s existence
● Has a reasonable scientific hypothesis: a reasonable interpretation of the evidence we see
around us
● Some insist that his argument does not support faith since fideism faiths doesn’t depend on
reason or proof
● H.H. Price’s distinction between belief in and belief that can be used to support Paley.
Paley’s use of natural theology supports belief that God designed the universe, and Paley’s’
comments about the wonder of the design promote belief in God as the designer
● The question of what kind of God is left. Does evil show that the designer is not all-loving?
Could Christian belief cope with the view of process of Theology, that God is not all-powerful
or with the deistic view that the designer has left us to our won free devices?
The Cosmological Argument (A Posteriori- (inductive) based on observation)
Key Terms:
Premises= Proposition
Inductive Reasoning (posteriori): process of recognising/observing patterns. Established in 4 stages
1. Observation- collect facts, without bias
2. Analysis- classify the facts. Identifying patterns of regularity
3. Inference- infer generalisation
4. Confirmation- testing the inference through further observation
5. Conclusion must be argued to yield probability and not proof
Deductive Reasoning (priori): begins with the general and ends with the specific e.g., all men are
mortal, Socrates is a man and therefore Socrates is mortal.
The Design Argument (an inductive argument from analogy)
Key text - Natural Theology
key quotation - ‘every manifestation of design in the watch, exist in the work of nature; with the
difference on the side of nature of being greater’
An analogy is inference where information is transferred from one subject to another, Paley transfers
his inference about the organisation and design of watches to the organisation and design of nature.
Paley’s Analogy;
1. A watch has complex parts, each with a function, and the parts work together for a specific
purpose.
2. So, the watch must have been designed by a watch maker
3. Similarly, the universe has parts that function together for a purpose
4. So, the universe must have been designed by a universe maker
5. The universe is a far more wonderful design than a watch, so its designer is much greater
than any human designer.
6. The universe designer is God.
“For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists
in the works of nature with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more”
Paley's argument is based on three observations about the world:
● Its complexity- he looks at the complexities of the natural world e.g., biological organisms
and organ (e.g., eye) and also looks at the complexities of the laws of nature by which it is
governed
● Its regularity- he observes the regularity of the orbits of comets, moons and planets and of
seasons of the year
● Its purpose- he observes machines and infers they are built for a purpose. The complexity
and regularity of a watch implies that it has a purpose even if that purpose is unknown.
Therefore, the complexity and regularity of the world implies it has a purpose
The features of the Watch:
,ORDER: The watch functions owing to the successful order to which it was created. COMPLEX:
Because there are several parts, the watch is deemed complex.
INTERACTION: Parts interact with each other and have responsibilities towards each other.
PURPOSE: Given these responsibilities, the watch can be said to have a total purpose – to tell the
time. These things could not have come about of their own accord. There must be a designer of this
watch, (as there would be for any watch).
The features of the World:
ORDERED – we can see that there are distinct patterns and rhythms to nature, as well as ecosystems.
COMPLEX – there are billions of species of animal and plant in the world.
INTERACTION: Things in the world interact with one another.
PURPOSE: Things do seem to act for individuated purpose – each
animal, for example, does its own thing. In the same manner by which we viewed the watch, it
seems sensible and even logical to say that there is a designer of
the world.
“There is the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made
for assisting it”
FR Tennant supports Paley’s argument and uses the Anthropic Principle to support it. The boundary
conditions are fined to tuned and have all aligned against all the odds hence there must be
something that must have designed it to bring about intelligent beings.
Further support from John Polkinghorne (a physicist and contemporary Anglican priest) ‘science
shows us a universe that is deeply intelligible’
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher who was empiricist, a sceptic and probably an atheist. He
criticised the design argument before Paley wrote his version so Hume’s not directly criticising Paley’s
work. Paley had knowledge of Hume’s work as he had read at least one of his works.
Hume’s Criticism (Swinburne’s Reply for each of Hume’s Criticisms):
1. If the world was designed, there is no evidence to support that this is the all-powerful
Christian God. It could be a lesser being. There could be multiple designers.
The principle of Ockham’s razor says that we should always accept the simplest explanation. There is
no reason to say that there is more than one designer. Also, we see no evidence to suggest that there
are many designers; the law of gravity, for example, is universal.
2. The existence of evil and imperfection in the world points out to a flawed/limited designer.
Perhaps God is dead. Perhaps God made many worlds before he got it right. Hume ‘many
worlds botched and bungled’. Richard Dawkins talks about the ‘blind watchmaker’
The existence of evil does not affect the teleological argument because it does not seek to prove the
benevolence and omnipotence of God.
3. Analogy between the universe and machines are unsound. Why can’t we think of it has an
organism that grows and reproduces instead.
,A vegetable only grows because the laws of biochemistry apply. We have to ask what generated
those laws?
4. The argument anthropomorphises God- makes him too much like a human being.
God does not have to share all the attributes of human designers. In order to control the regularities
of the universe, God must be free, rational and very powerful, but cannot have a body since that
would restrict Him. He is therefore very different from human designers.
5. The universe could have developed into other by chance (the Epicurean Thesis); there are
periods of chaos and order; we happen to be living in a period of order.
The view that the universe is a product of chance becomes less believable as time progresses and
order remains.
6. If the world was designed, who designed the designer?
There is no reason to suppose that the cause of order in the universe requires an external
explanation for itself. He created the laws of the universe; He does not have to follow them Himself.
7. The analogy of human design and God is poor as the universe is unique and we can’t arrive
at conclusions about its origins.
It is not unreasonable to ask questions about something that it unique. Scientists do it all the time.
Also, the universe may be unique, but it has things in common with its parts; for example, like many
of its parts, it changes, is composed of material elements and exhibits regularity. Anyway, all things
are unique to some extent.
8. We can only be sure that the designer has the same qualities required for the design and no
other so we can’t claim things about God unless they are directly apparent in the Universe’s
design. Hume argued that it was impossible to draw conclusions about the whole from a
small part.
Even if God has more attributes than we can tell from the design of the universe, the universe at
least provides some support for His existence. We can assume that a being that created the universe
is powerful, incorporeal (without a body) because it exists outside the universe and it is purposive (it
creates order).
As pointed out by JS Mill in his book ‘On Nature’, Paley is selective with his evidence. The amount of
evil and suffering caused by nature is irreconcible with the idea of an omnibenevolent designer.
Dawkins - evolution and natural selection explains the illusion of design. There is no intelligent
designer. ‘Natural selection is the watchmaker’. the world was not designed for us, we adapted to it.
It is argued that Paley’s analogy does not work, you cannot infer information from a watch to the
universe.
The status of Paley’s argument as ‘proof’
● Proof can mean ‘sufficient evidence for a proposition’, as in ‘proof of guilt’
● probable not absolute proof
● paley uses evidence and reasoning
● Proof can be inductive which can be scientific status (e.g., water boils 100) but Paley’s
argument amounts to be a reasonable inductive probability
, ● Paley’s argument can be seen as the best argument for the order that we see so his
argument is still powerful
● Blaise Pascal - ‘metaphysical proofs for the existence of God are so remote from human
reasoning and so complex that they have little impact’
● Some hold that proof can only come from the certainty that people find in faith e.g., religious
experience, this is only proof to the person that experiences it.
● Proof can be deductive as in Anselm’s ontological argument. Paley's argument is inductive so
it can never amount to deductive/logically certain proof
● Many theologians e.g., Aquinas agree (Aqainas has his own version of the design argument)
● Even if proves design, annot prove who the designer is
The relationship Between Reason and Faith
● Some see faith in God as unreasonable as they believe in truth in science/empirical. The
belief in God can be a reasonable hypothesis based on evidence from observation of the
universe, appearance of order and design.
● For others, only faith gives certainty
● Fideism can be seen as justifying absurd beliefs (such as Linus’ belief in the Great Pumpkin)
● H.H Price distinguishes between belief that God exists and belief in God, Belief in God is
evaluative, whereas belief that God exists is nothing but acceptance of an existential
proposition
● Belief in God is about religion, belief in God’s existence is reasonable but reason doesn’t take
us as far as faith
● Pope John Paul 11 argues that truth can only be known through a mixture of faith and
reason. Excluding the importance of either one reduces the ability to understand the truth.
fide et ratio
The Value of Paley's Design Argument for Religious Faith
● Supports faith by reasoning matching Pope John Paul 11’s view that faith and reason should
be mutually supportive and not exclusive
● John Polkinghorne ‘faith is motivated belief, based on evidence’
● Paley’s argument gives theists a ‘reasoned defence of their faith’ as it is rationally and
empirically based
● Forms a reasonable defence of religious faith against atheism, which has no more evidence
for the non-existence of God than Paley did for God’s existence
● Has a reasonable scientific hypothesis: a reasonable interpretation of the evidence we see
around us
● Some insist that his argument does not support faith since fideism faiths doesn’t depend on
reason or proof
● H.H. Price’s distinction between belief in and belief that can be used to support Paley.
Paley’s use of natural theology supports belief that God designed the universe, and Paley’s’
comments about the wonder of the design promote belief in God as the designer
● The question of what kind of God is left. Does evil show that the designer is not all-loving?
Could Christian belief cope with the view of process of Theology, that God is not all-powerful
or with the deistic view that the designer has left us to our won free devices?
The Cosmological Argument (A Posteriori- (inductive) based on observation)
