teleological arguments

Question 1

design argument from anaology

Answer 1

p1. in the fitting of means to ends, nature resembles the products of human design
p2. similar effects have similar causes
p3. the cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design
c1. therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design

Question 2

paleys design argument from spatial order

Answer 2

p1. anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed
p2. nature contains things which have parts that are organised to serve a purpose
c1. therefore, nature contains things which are designed
p3. design can only be explained in terms of a designer
p4. a designer must be or have a mind and be distinct from what is designed
c2. therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
c3. therefore, such a mind/god exists

Question 3

swinburne design argument from temporal order

Answer 3

p1. there are some temporal regularities
p2. there are other temporal regularities
c1. so we can, by analogy, explain the regularities relating to the operation in terms of persons
p3. there is no scientific explanation of the operation of the laws of nature
p4. there are only 2 types of explanation; scientific and personal
c2. therefore, there is no better explanation of the regularities relating to the operation of the laws of nature than the explanation in terms of persons
c3. therefore, the regularities relating to the operation of the laws of nature are produced by a person
c4. therefore, such a person, who can act on the entire universe exists

Question 4

Hume’s objections

Answer 4

> the analogy isn’t very strong
- products like a watch/house are not much like nature or the universe as a whole
> the great disproportion between a part of the universe and the whole universe, undermines the interference that something similar to human intelligence caused the universe, therefore cannot reasonably infer that nature is anything like a human mind

Question 5

the problem of spatial disorder

Answer 5

we need to explain the whole universe, and that contains a great deal of spatial disorder, vast areas of space in which there is no organisation of parts, no purpose
> can be used to argue that the designer is not God
» in the case of Hume and Paley, why should we take the order to be more striking or important than the disorder when considering the cause of the universe, what reasons are their to suppose the order outweighs the disorder

Question 6

the issue of whether God is the best/only explanation

Answer 6

• to infer that there is a designer of nature, we have to rule out other possible explanations of the organisation of parts for a purpose.
• Suppose that matter is finite but that time is infinite, given that there are only a finite number of possible arrangements of matter, over infinite time, all the arrangements of matter would occur.
• why the arrangement of parts should benefit organisms.
• this doesn’t automatically make it a worse proposal, because there are problems with the proposal of a designer as well.
• Are we to suppose that the designer has a body? Or again, we have no clear concept of a mind that is eternal.
• The right conclusion, then, is that neither explanation is clearly better.
• So the design argument doesn’t show that there is a designer. Instead, Hume concludes, we should suspend judgement.

Question 7

the design argument fails as it is from a unique case

Answer 7

To make any inference about the cause of the universe, we would need experience of the origins of many worlds. We don’t have this kind of experience, so we simply cannot know what caused the universe.