Question
Topic: Explain Paley’s teleological argument for God’s existence. Then, reconstruct one of Hume’s objections to the teleological argument. Finally, argue whether you find Hume’s objection convincing.
- Use a 12 point, easy-to-read font, and 1 inch margins. This paper should be double-spaced.
- This paper should be 3 pages. You may go over by 1/2 of a page without a penalty. You should not write less than 3 pages.
- There should be an introduction with a thesis statement for this paper. Conclusions are optional.
- Aim to spend about 1 page on each of the main parts of the paper. That is, one page on the explanation of the view. One page on the objection to the view. One page on your analysis of the objection.
- Avoid doing outside research for this paper. Except in rare cases, you should only study and refer to material from the course.
- You should use direct quotations and close paraphrases in the paper, and there should be citations for each of these quotations and paraphrases. You do not need a bibliography, but when you directly quote or closely paraphrase a reading from class, you should provide a parenthetical citation that includes the author name and page number.
- For example: Kant states, “It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will” (Kant, 485).
- You should submit a doc, docx, or pdf file.
Solution
Paley’s Teleological Argument
I view Paley’s watchmaker argument for God’s existence as a more sophisticated teleological argument that attempts to avoid the objection to the analogy between the natural universe and human artifacts presented by Hume. Considering the similarities between the universe and the machine, he concluded that some analogous factors that lead to the cause exist. In the watchmaker argument by Paley, he compares the universe to a watch in order to show that the former has been designed by an intelligent designer, God. In this paper, I argue that in the design argument, Paley focuses on identifying what he views as a reliable indicator of intelligent design rather than the similarity between human artifacts and the material world, thus making it vulnerable from Hume’s objection that the analogy is weak.
At first, I argue that the complexity of the watch proves that there is a watchmaker who designed it, which applies to the complexity of the universe. Paley argues that considering the complexity of a watch absent in a stone, such a machine could not have existed by chance. He argues that “Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there” (Paley, 31). Therefore, since there is more complexity found in the natural universe than in the watch, it must also have a designer but an intelligent and more powerful designer. Regarding evidence of intelligent design on a watch, as Paley argued, I find a watch a very important thing that performs a valuable function. Thus it has value to its intelligent designer and any other intelligent agent. Additionally, the watch was designed by some intelligent agency because of its size, shape, and arrangement characteristics. Also, every mechanism and part plays its role where without one, the watch could not function……………for help with this assignment contact us via email Address: consulttutor10@gmail.com