Design Argument: Fails to Prove God's Existence? (2021 PDF)

0 1. 2 ‘The design argument fails to prove the existence of God.’ Evaluate this claim. [15 marks] NOVEMBER 2021 The question states that the design argument fails to prove the existence of God. I disagree with this statement. Paley’s argument is a posteriori which has a basis on empirical observat...

0 1. 2 ‘The design argument fails to prove the existence of God.’ Evaluate this claim. [15 marks] NOVEMBER 2021 The question states that the design argument fails to prove the existence of God. I disagree with this statement. Paley’s argument is a posteriori which has a basis on empirical observation as well as being of an inductive nature which draws a probabilistic conclusion which has a straightforward explanation. In Paley’s argument he states that the universe is like a watch which has complex parts working together for a purpose and just as a watch implies a watchmaker, the universe implies a designer. Which concludes that the universe must have been designed by a powerful, intelligent being which must be God. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher and historian argues that even if the universe appears designed it does not prove the designer is a the Christian God as a lesser being could be responsible. Although Hume agrees that the universe has a designer, it does not imply a specific deity and lacks scope for proof of such Christian theology which makes Paley’s argument a generic theistic kind. As Post Darwin attitudes moved on, natural selection provided an alternative explanation which challenged the teleological reasoning that Paley agrees with. This reduced Paley’s design argument to prove the existence of God because of the credibility of the argument. Hume criticises that flaws and imperfections in the world suggest a designer with limited power or knowledge. But, because of anthropic principle, Paley argues that the universe appears fine-tuned to existence and suggests intentional design of the world because of the way the world is configured even though Hume feels that the existence of evil and suffering challenges the notion of a benevolent designer who surely would want the world to be perfect. Another criticism from Hume is that Paley assumes that the universe’s designer resembles a human watchmaker which may not be true. Paley anthropomorphizes the designer in which he assumes that the designer could be human which doesn’t make sense as you cannot apply any human analogy to a cosmological design. Hume acknowledges the fact that any inference of intelligence does not need human-like characteristics.