Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
THE DESIGN ARGUEMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT -…
THE DESIGN ARGUEMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Richard Dawkins - Evolution + Natural Selection explains the illusion of design - there is no intelligent designer
21st Century Scientist + Athiest
Book = 'The Blind Watchmaker'
He argues that there is no watchmaker -
'Natural selection is the watchmaker'
Dawkins believes that
humanity needs to 'outgrow belief in God'
Science can now explain the appearance of design in the universe as being the result of
Darwin's Theory of Evolution + Natural Selection
The world was not designed for us; we adapted to it,
which is why our species has survived
He writes
'Natural Selection is the blind watch maker,
blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view...'
Bertrand Russell - the existence of the universe is a brute fact
Bertrand Russell argued that the existence of the universe is a 'brute fact' - a fact that cannot be further explained or explains itself
He asserted in a famous 1948 radio debate that 'I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all'
We should not try and go back to find out who was the designer or saying there was a designer, we simply have to accept that the universe is there and that's it - that's the limit of our knowledge, there is not further explanation.
Response to Russell -
Leibniz and his Principle of Sufficient Reason
Everything must have a sufficient reason for existing
Anything in existence must therefore have a reason for existing
Aristotle - would support this
There must be something, rather than nothing
The status of Paley's Design Argument as 'Proof'
The argument doesn't offer proof
Richard Dawkins has demonstrated significant flaws to the argument and he has given a very powerful alternative explanation, so the status of Paley's argument as proof is undermined
An atheist is unlikely to be satisfied by the Design Argument because these alternative explanations demonstrate the argument is out-dated/incorrect/flawed
The argument does offer proof
Most things we accept as true in life are based on inductive arguments - inductive arguments are accepted and valued in the modern world because it's consistent with how people attain proof of things in the modern world today
They are accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'
The stronger the evidence is, the more probably true a claim is
The argument does offer proof
The argument uses observation/empiricism - this is a popular way of attaining proof in the 21st Century
People love to gain knowledge through using their senses + observation
Its methodology is consistent with people in modern societies way of attaining proof
The argument does offer proof
Many theists may be satisfied that the argument offers proof because it is consistent with their pre-existing beliefs + world view - it is consistent with Genesis
It is consistent with Biblical teaching ('in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth') Theists may see this rationally + empirically based argument as providing 'proof' for their religious beliefs
The argument doesn't offer proof
Only deductive arguments can offer absolute proof
The Design Argument is inductive, so can never be absolutely certain
Pascal; 'it has little impact'
Dawkins has demonstrated significant flaws to the argument
The argument doesn't offer proof
Even if it proved design, it cannot prove who the designer is (this part of the argument requires faith)
God as a designer is not empirically proven by Paley
Believing the designer is God + Christian God requires faith
Certain parts of the argument have better proof than others
The leap to the belief in a transcendent designer is not supported by evidence/ is not sufficient as proof
The argument doesn't offer proof
Fideists (believe knowledge of God through faith alone)
would argue that Natural Theology cannot lead to knowledge of God
It is impossible to 'know' God in that way
Religion is a matter of faith, rather than objective proof
It is a leap of faith, rather than proof
It is impossible for us to know God in this way because we are sinful + in a state of fallenness
We can only know God through faith
It could be argued that trying to 'prove' God's existence in this way is impossible because religion is a matter of faith, rather than objective proof