Essay On The Design Argument For God

The Design Argument for God

The design argument is illustrated for presenting the empirical arguments on the existence of God. The arguments attempt to recognize the different types of empirical features that deal with the constitutional evidence of intelligent design. These design arguments are also termed as technological arguments that include ‘telos’, the Greek word of ‘purpose’. According to Elliott (2017), the design argument includes the three major components. First is the premise that proves the existence of some of the empirical property. Second is the sub-argument that defines the persuasive nature of the empirical designs that involves the evidence and the intelligent purpose. The third one is the premise, which concludes probable explanation for the fact that is exhibited in the universe (Bailey and O’Brien 2014). This specific research paper will discuss the evidence-based analysis presented by the famous philosophers. Incorporation of the philosophical view would make the research paper much informative.

It is to be indicated that the design argument is one of the three major arguments about the existence of God. The other two arguments are the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. The design arguments, as presented by Elliot Sober, are classified into twp different types, such as cosmic and organismic (Glass and McCartney 2014). According to his explanation, the organismic designs are generally focusing on the observation of the adaptive features of the environment in which they exhibit the delicacy. On the other hand, cosmic design arguments include the observational features that are concerned with the entire cosmos, obeying the simple laws (De Cruz 2014). Sober defined that the cosmic design is stable and it permits the life to exist in a proper way.

The dialogues presented by David Hume in concerning natural religion reflect the cosmological arguments. The appearance of condenses and Clarke in his argument is representing the concept-based explanation. He stated,

“Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being absolutely impossible for anything to produce itself, or to be the cause of its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent……” ( Bailey and O’Brien 2014).

The argument depicts that there is impossible to rely on an infinite succession of the causes and effects by ignoring the ultimate cause. Hume also explained that the arguments are continued since this fails to provide any particular reason for the casual chain or an entire series (De Cruz 2014). By presenting a contradictory argument, Elliott Sober mentioned that the criticism of Hume would lose the bites if the arguments were not analogical (Nieminen et al. 2017). Apparently, the design is somewhat exquisite that can be compared to the scientific elaboration of Orgel, “Evolution is cleverer than you are”.

The technological argument implies that if the design is implied as the designer, then it can be inferred that the universe is designed. The perspective of everyday’s life, it is noted that the history of earth is quite complex. The arguments presented regarding the existence of God, the creator. The intelligent design is created by determining the scientific theory. The differentiation between the intelligent design and the poor design ensures the appropriate arguments on the existence of the creator (Girotto, Pievani and Vallortigara 2014). The argument from the poor design is against the God’s existence. It presents the reasoning that God would not create the organisms by perceiving the suboptimal designs visualized in the nature.

In the creationism, people are inclined towards several philosophical views. They have the strong believe in the existence of God. It is also believed that the world is made in period of six that contains twenty-four hour in a day. The argument presents in the intelligent design depicts that the world reflects the evidence of the scientific nature in which the God exists and He is the designer of the world (De Cruz 2014). The elaboration of David Hume depicts that the material universe is somewhat resembling the intelligent production in which the design exhibits. It has been specified that the designs related to the human artifacts are proportional to the designs created by the intelligent beings. Hence, it can be inferred that an intelligent creator has created the designs of the material universe.

 Darwin’s theory of evolution is against the belief of intelligent design. Many philosophers believe in Darwin’s evolution theory believes that many structure of the animals and plants sometimes bear the unmistakable signature of design, which is created by a supernatural intelligence (Patrides 2016). Cosmic design arguments include the observational features that are concerned with the entire cosmos, obeying the simple laws. On the other hand, the supporters of intelligent design argued that neither human nor animals could have involved in stepwise fashion if the supernatural intelligence does not exist. In fact, if any of the part is removed, it will cease the entire functionalities (Swinburne 2014). Therefore, the arguments present in the intelligent designs have opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution, which depicts that the humans, animals, and worldly beings are evolutionary changing with time. The arguments presented in support of Darwin’s theory exclaim that steps associated with the evolution process exist in the record of fossil. Even though there is the existence of complex structures, it gradually shapes the evolutionary image.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution includes the evolution by natural selection, which discusses the origin of the complexity, adaptations, and diversity among the living creatures of earth. Apart from Charles Darwin, many critiques has even denied the existence of God and supported the theory of evolution of the living creatures in this world (De Cruz 2014). In presenting the counter argument, Sober defined that the cosmic design as the stable form of intelligent design by God, the creator. Cosmic design arguments are thus including the observational features that are concerned with the entire cosmos, obeying the simple laws.

References

Bailey, A. and O’Brien, D., 2014. The Design Argument and Empirical Evidence of God’s Existence. In Hume's Critique of Religion:'Sick Men's Dreams' (pp. 103-124). Springer Netherlands.

De Cruz, H., 2014. The enduring appeal of natural theological arguments. Philosophy Compass, 9(2), pp.145-153.

Elliott, T.E., 2017. On the Logic of Evolution and the Vanity of Scientism. Acta Cogitata: A Philosophy Journal, 2(1), p.5.

Girotto, V., Pievani, T. and Vallortigara, G., 2014. Supernatural beliefs: Adaptations for social life or by-products of cognitive adaptations?. Behaviour, 151(2-3), pp.385-402.

Glass, D.H. and McCartney, M., 2014. Explaining and explaining away in science and religion. Theology and science, 12(4), pp.338-361.

Nieminen, P., Boudry, M., Ryökäs, E. and Mustonen, A.M., 2017. Biblical and theistic arguments against the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Zygon®, 52(1), pp.9-23.

Patrides, C.A., 2016. The grand design of God: the literary form of the Christian view of history (Vol. 23).

Swinburne, R., 2014. Argument From Design. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, p.207.