HOW SUCCESSFUL IS THE TELEOLOGICAL/DESIGN ARGUMENT FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD ? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Partially Successful (in line with Swinburne’s Argument)
CR: Temporal Order and Altered Conclusion
INTRO: The teleological argument, also known as the design argument, is an a posteriori,
and generally inductive argument for the existence of God. It appeals to the intuition that
complexity and purposeful order in the universe are unlikely to arise by chance, suggesting
instead the existence of a highly intelligent designer, or God. However, it has many flaws,
such as making weak analogies, inferring from a unique case, disregarding spatial disorder,
and making an unjustified leap from design to God. Overall, I will argue that the design
argument is a partially successful argument for the existence of God, because I think
Hume’s and Paley’s versions fail, while Swinburne’s one offers a stronger case for some
kind of designer. The crucial reason for this is that it appeals to temporal order, rather than
spatial order, and it alters its conclusion, making it less specific to classical theism and the
Abrahamic version of God.
PARA 1 - HUME:
P) Outline Argument
A) Hume: Weak Analogy & Unique Case
E) Hume’s Argument fails, but is a strawman argument, so doesn’t disprove Teleo fully
PARA 2 - PALEY:
P) Outline Argument
A) Unique Case applied
C) Paley: we know enough about the property to infer a designer correctly (watch example)
E) Weak response (we have xp of watches)
A) Evolution
E) Paley’s Argument fails, since evolution is simpler and more logical
PARA 3 - SWINBURNE:
P) Explain Temporal Order advantages (inc. evolution) and Outline Argument (inc. SOME
designer)
A) Unique Case applied
C) Swinburne: uniqueness is relative
A) Designer may not be the best explanation (finite matter in an infinite time frame)
C) Swinburne: This would cause a chaotic universe which isn’t the case
E) Swinburne’s argument is strong - the traditional concept of God may not exist, but some
designer does. + Shlesinger’s adaptation of the fine-tuning argument (suspicious
improbability)
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I think that the teleological argument is partially successful in
proving the existence of God. Hume’s version fails as a result of making a weak analogy,
and setting up a strawman argument that is easy to object to. Paley’s version is
unsuccessful due to the better explanation of evolution, demonstrating how spatial order and
EXISTENCE OF GOD ? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Partially Successful (in line with Swinburne’s Argument)
CR: Temporal Order and Altered Conclusion
INTRO: The teleological argument, also known as the design argument, is an a posteriori,
and generally inductive argument for the existence of God. It appeals to the intuition that
complexity and purposeful order in the universe are unlikely to arise by chance, suggesting
instead the existence of a highly intelligent designer, or God. However, it has many flaws,
such as making weak analogies, inferring from a unique case, disregarding spatial disorder,
and making an unjustified leap from design to God. Overall, I will argue that the design
argument is a partially successful argument for the existence of God, because I think
Hume’s and Paley’s versions fail, while Swinburne’s one offers a stronger case for some
kind of designer. The crucial reason for this is that it appeals to temporal order, rather than
spatial order, and it alters its conclusion, making it less specific to classical theism and the
Abrahamic version of God.
PARA 1 - HUME:
P) Outline Argument
A) Hume: Weak Analogy & Unique Case
E) Hume’s Argument fails, but is a strawman argument, so doesn’t disprove Teleo fully
PARA 2 - PALEY:
P) Outline Argument
A) Unique Case applied
C) Paley: we know enough about the property to infer a designer correctly (watch example)
E) Weak response (we have xp of watches)
A) Evolution
E) Paley’s Argument fails, since evolution is simpler and more logical
PARA 3 - SWINBURNE:
P) Explain Temporal Order advantages (inc. evolution) and Outline Argument (inc. SOME
designer)
A) Unique Case applied
C) Swinburne: uniqueness is relative
A) Designer may not be the best explanation (finite matter in an infinite time frame)
C) Swinburne: This would cause a chaotic universe which isn’t the case
E) Swinburne’s argument is strong - the traditional concept of God may not exist, but some
designer does. + Shlesinger’s adaptation of the fine-tuning argument (suspicious
improbability)
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I think that the teleological argument is partially successful in
proving the existence of God. Hume’s version fails as a result of making a weak analogy,
and setting up a strawman argument that is easy to object to. Paley’s version is
unsuccessful due to the better explanation of evolution, demonstrating how spatial order and
