Discuss about the Modern Cosmology and Biological Design Argument.
In this paper, I will discuss the teleological argument as put forth by Paley. In the first section I will discuss the definition of God and the teleological argument followed by the discussion of the criticism on the teleological argument as put forth by the various contemporaries as well as the successors of Paley. The following report attempts a description of the teleological argument as proposed William Paley and proceeds further to relate the arguments made by Hume in criticism of the arguments put forth by Paley.
The teleological argument, often known as the Design argument, deals with the areas that pertain to the proof of the existence of the Supreme Being or any other Divine Form. The teleological argument states that there might exist within the universe a very powerful and vastly intelligent designer who might have been responsible for the creation of this universe. The argument as put forth by Paley suggests that the teleological argument might be termed to be an a posteriori argument that argues for the existence of the Supreme Being. The eminent philosopher tends to explain the same through the famous “watch” argument. The philosopher aims to compare the universe to a watch. The philosopher states that the intricate mechanisms of the watch help in the stating that the concerned instrument has been made by an efficient and intelligent mind who is capable of the understanding the nuances of the instrument and thereby helping in the matters that relate to the comprehension of the mechanism of the same (Paley, 2014). The philosopher compares the making of the universe to the making of the watch and goes on further to suggest that the creator of the universe might also be referred to as an artifact that depicts the characteristics that are demonstrated by the human artifacts that are designed by the efficient and intelligent human beings (Kojonen, 2016). The philosopher argues that the universe demonstrates similar characteristics thereby leading to the conclusion that the universe might also be designed by some intelligent being who is superior and seems to have sound knowledge of the various mechanisms that form the base of the activities of the universe (Noguera?Solano, 2013). The premises explained by the celebrated philosopher draws on the nature of the purposeful nature of the universe that bear a similarity to the various artifacts that are designed by the humans. The universe also depicts the purposefulness of the arrangement thereby assisting the process of deciphering the fact that the universe too has a purpose of existence. The vast and the more complex design of the universe leads to the inference that states the universe is the creation of a being that is capable of the possession and the implementation of the various designs and calculations that are needed for the precise and accurate functioning of the universe management.
According to the celebrated philosopher, the existence of the Supreme Being might be confirmed with the existence and the proper functionality of the universe as a whole. The philosopher tends to put forth the comparison that the Supreme Being might be compared to a watchmaker who is capable of designing a watch in the most precise manner. The philosopher states that the concerned universe might be compared to a watch that has a complex as well as intricate functionality (Page, 2015). The Supreme Being or the Almighty is thus referred to by the concerned philosopher as the being an intelligent being that is capable of having a sound knowledge of the matters that pertain to the working of the universe management.
However, the views of the eminent philosopher were criticized and opposed by the contemporaries as well as successors of the celebrated philosopher. The eminent philosopher, Hume, further compares the universe to an animal and further suggests that the Supreme Being might be compared to the soul of the concerned animal (De Cruz, 2014). This might help in the understanding of the matters that pertain to the universe and the Almighty at large. The Supreme Being might also be compared to the soul of an animal, the universe. The other criticism of the universe creation state that the creator of the universe might not be a single person but a number of people since there are possibilities that the universe might be a composition of the various parts of the same (Holder, 2017). The counter-argument of the given argument states that the universe is functional on a very intricate manner while he watches might malfunction at any given point of time.
Thus, it can be safely concluded that the teleological argument as put forth by the celebrated philosopher, William Paley states that the universe-maker is an entity that bears a huge intelligence thereby creating a universe that has been perfectly functional. The philosopher suggests that the universe might be compared to a vegetable or an animal who is functionless without a soul. The philosophers who had posed an objection to the theory put forth by Paley states that the Supreme Being might be known to be the soul of the Universe.
De Cruz, H. (2014). The enduring appeal of natural theological arguments. Philosophy Compass, 9(2), 145-153.
Holder, R. D. (2017). God, the multiverse, and everything: Modern cosmology and the argument from design. Routledge.
Kojonen, E. V. (2016). Salvaging the Biological Design Argument in Light of Darwinism?. Theology and Science, 14(3), 361-381.
Noguera?Solano, R. (2013). The metaphor of the architect in Darwin: Chance and free will. Zygon®, 48(4), 859-874.
Page, B. (2015). The dispositionalist deity: How God creates laws and why theists should care. Zygon®, 50(1), 113-137.
Paley, W. (2014). The Watch and the Watchmaker. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 198.