CRITICAL REASONING-PHIL 106

The Design Argument for God’s Existence

Over the years, God’s existence has become the most debated issue and the fact that science cannot be used to prove this subject implies that the debate might go on for a very long time. Many logical theories have been produced by philosophers and while some of them could be easy to believe, these theories are just considered to be opinions. The design argument is one of the theories that are well-known for using analogy in proving God’s existence. According to the design argument, the universe is well designed for human habitation because all things are designed to suit their purpose, which is all the work of the creator (Warburton 11). The design argument leads to a series of epistemological questions, which are far beyond the conventional theological context. An observation was presented by Paley (2) and he suggested that whenever we come across a watch, we associate its production to a very intelligent designer but on the other hand when we come across a stone, we do not develop such inference. It raises questions on why inferences of intelligent design are compelled on the case of the watch and not on that of the stone. Despite the strengths of the design argument, numerous objections have been produced such as those of Darwin and Hume hence outweighing such strengths to show that everything in the universe came by chance and nothing was designed by an intelligent, external being hence we should not be distracted by whatever we observe and consider it to be design.

Design qua purpose is Paley’s first argument by to imply that the world was designed in order to fulfill a certain purpose. Paley uses a watch to show how the universe is complex hence arguing that the level of complexity attached to something could enable an individual to conclude if it is naturally made (Warburton 12). What Paley meant was that there must have been a “watchmaker’ because the presence of the watch could not have been by chance. Therefore, in the same way there must have been a designer who made the universe considering its complexity and this designer must be a supreme being who is God. Paley’s strong belief is developed by the perspective that individuals can simply use their inference to create a distinction between natural and man-made things. Paley also draws a different conclusion on the question of the stone by arguing that its origin is different because it lacks purpose, is not constantly in motion, does not change and has no complexity hence it is possible to assume that it had existed forever (Warburton 13). Therefore, Paley’s argument aimed to question the origin of the watch due to its complexity in the sense that it is in constant motion and has different parts that work uniformly.

The second part of Paley’s argument on God’s existence is qua regularity. Using evidence from Newton’s laws of gravity and motion as well as astronomy, Paley suggests that the universe has a unique design. He also claims that we have universal laws that explain how planets rotate and the effect of gravity are all evidence to show that the occurrence of the universe was not by chance because such laws provide regulation and order (Paley 435). Therefore, he made us understand that such regulation and order have a complex characteristic that is evidence enough to prove that the universe did not develop by accident. His final thoughts made us understand how a watchmaker considers to design a watch, in a similar way the universe has a maker, who is God (Paley 438).  

Another key strength of the design argument is its posteriori nature hence it can only be considered to be false or true through experience on how the universe is actually organized. It implies that our opinions can only be based on what we can hear, touch or see. The posteriori argument that individuals can depend on their senses shows that all the things in the universe present evidence of design (Paley 51). For instance, the animal kingdom has a food chain and the fact that the life of each depends on the other shows the purpose of this food chain, which is sustainability. This is an incredible design because such food chains cannot operate by chance hence it is not possible to find a cat eating a dog because its instincts are designed for it to find a mouse when it goes hungry. The argument is also very strong because it employs analogy in consolidating basic ideas hence making it easier for us to connect it with the entire concept of the universe (Paley 14). However, there are many criticisms made by various philosophers towards the design argument. Having described the strengths linked to the design argument, my argument will also focus on the criticisms in the next section, which will incorporate analysis on different ideas that oppose the design argument.

One of the major opponents of the design argument was David Hume who identified various flaws of this argument. There is neither prove to show the universe was made by a designer nor to confirm that the designer was the Theistic God due to the existence of the problem of evil (Hume 25). The philosopher claims that if indeed the design argument was true, God cannot have all the characteristics the argument associates him with such as being an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God because if he had this attributes then he would have prevented the universe from experiencing suffering and evil. Therefore, Hume suggests that if God was the designer of the universe and had all those attributes then surely he would have prevented natural disasters such as volcanoes and earthquakes because he is all-powerful and all-loving. What Hume claimed about the designer’s attributes are not well established by the design argument because it does not prove whether indeed there exists such a being that is morally perfect. He also points that design might have appeared due to the random fall of events. It presents the idea that the universe does not have a designer but rather it formed naturally. He sees presence of finite particles and infinite time can form possible combinations hence such combinations can become stable as time goes by and form the universe (Hume 9).

Darwin’s evolutionary theory also challenges the design argument. According to the theory, the development of species is by random mutation and those species that are able to adapt different environments are the ones that survive hence the term “survival of the fittest” (Darwin 12). For instance, in Galapagos Islands the beaks of the Finches changed as time went by in order to adapt to the environment and survive. Through the evolutionary theory, Darwin was implying that in life different species have to struggle for existence and only a few selected species end up surviving while the rest die. While criticizing Philo, Hume created a distinction between “intended” order and “apparent” order to show the random characteristic of the universe (Hume 56). Darwin’s theory supported the reasoning given by Hume that an “apparent” order could result even from chaos. He argues that if design involves numerous species dying simply (Darwin 426). The idea that all species came to existence after evolving from other simpler species reveals that species were not designed as Paley suggests in the design argument. Therefore, the theory presented by Darwin challenges Paley’s argument on design qua purpose by suggesting that the universe does not have a designer and if indeed there exists one, then he must be a faulty designer and not the one referred as the omnipotent God.

 Conclusively, we can now believe the arguments presented by Hume and Darwin are more convincing than the strengths of the design argument because both philosophers present sound ideas to prove that the development of the universe could have happened by chance to create beautiful, complex structures without the help of a designer. This could mean that dysfunctional and ugly structures might have been eliminated by nature because they lacked complexity that could have enabled them to function whereas complex structures remained. The arguments given by Darwin and Hume reveal that appearance of design could only be “apparent.” In the sense that, there are more complex things that Paley does not consider such as the blood coagulation process, which could raise several questions on whether such processes really have any design. Therefore, the challenges surrounding the design argument are more persuasive to show the universe does not have a design. We can now find criticisms on the design argument such as the evolutionary theory by Darwin regarding the universe to have developed naturally very strong arguments that give solid evidence to show that indeed the universe has no design. For instance, the argument Darwin presents concerning the beaks of Finches, which had to change within the course of time in order to adapt environments such as Galapagos Islands is quite convincing that the universe does not have design because their original beaks were not structurally fulfilling their purpose, which presented no choice but for them to change in order to adapt to the universe.

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. On the origin of species: A facsimile of the first edition. Harvard University Press, 1964.

Hume, David. Dialogues concerning natural religion. Penguin UK, 1990.

Paley, William. Natural theology: or, Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature. By William Paley,... FC and J. Rivington, 1819.

Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: the basics. Routledge, 2004.