Paley’s Teleological Argument about the Existence of God Essay Example

designed by the intelligent maker i.e. the watchmaker while the universe with its greatness and complexity must have been created by the powerful and intelligent creator.

From the above analogy, it can therefore be proved that God exists who created the universe. The Paleys argument is based on the premise that there is no way the watch could have come by an accident just like the stone or the rock and this is sufficient evidence that there must be a watchmaker (Smedt and Cluz 666). In the same manner, the universe design is intricate in terms of position of earth from sun and the molecular structure of the ice and this is also a sufficient evidence that the earth did not come by chance or accident and there must be an intelligent designer who designed it such as the Deity or the Supreme Being as it is explained by the scripture (Smedt and Cluz 668). From this analogy, it is can be inferred that God who is believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and everything that is contained in it.

The most convincing part of the argument is it that the complexity of the nature could not have been come by chance but there must have been a designer who played an important role of ensuring different parts that are interrelated work together (McGrath 185). Just as it is the case for the watch which comprise of different parts which work together in order to show the time at a particular part of the day and it was designed by the watchmaker, the same case applies to the world which comprise of different interrelated

parts which work together and this must be a work of the designer i.e. God. Based on this apology it can be inferred that God, the creator of heaven and earth and all things in it do exist.

The teleological argument has received much criticism from different philosophers such as David Hume due to the flaws in it. According to Hume, the use of Teleological Argument to prove that God exists is nothing but a guess (Smedt and Cluz 669). Hume argued that one cannot draw accurate conclusions by comparing two totally different things. In relation to Teleological Argument, Hume stated that the nature and the watch are dissimilar and the analogy cannot therefore hold water. The analogy could only have been valid if Paley was comparing two similar things since one cannot compare the apples with oranges. The proof that God exists cannot therefore be accounted by the use of Design Analogy and Paleys argument is therefore a guess and invalid.

The argument has also been criticized because there seems to be some disorderly in the universe in some aspects. For instance the appearance of the stars sometimes seems to be disordered and they are normally organized by the patterns (Smedt and Cluz 669). For instance what is sees as Big Dipper or the seven brightest stars of the Ursa Major is as well seen as the plough, the stretcher, the chariot of the parrot. The question that is asked is what the actual objective of that order of that pattern of the stars. It can therefore be implied that the world lack order as it argued in the Teleological Argument by Paley and therefore the

explanation contain flaws in it. It can therefore be implied that that the argument is based on the wrong premise that it was designed by a designer. To prove that Good exist by the use of the Teleological Argument is not true and the argument presented is flawed.

However the Paley’s argument can be discredited using the Darwin developmental theory. Using this theory one can discredit the Paley argument. First according to Darwin the various natural processes are known to produce marks of design. According to Darwin therefore it is not right to argue that beautiful shell must be made by an intelligent being (House 186). Using this argument one can argue that everything in nature is as result of certain fixed law. Darwin theory mainly deals with living things and therefore one can easily discredit it using the Paley argument since it also gives explanation with regard to the non-livings.

The Paley’s argument is also discredited because of being abstract in nature and cannot be proved scientifically. The existence of the ‘universe maker’ is beyond possible experience and since there are a lot of people that take part in the manufacture of the watch it can therefore such as the miners of the gems and the metals, the distributors, the craftsmen and the engineers, it can therefore be implied that there are many gods that exists (McGrath 185). This contradicts what is commonly believed that only one God exists and the use of watch analogy to prove the existence of God does not therefore hold water.

In Conclusion, the Teleological Argument uses the design argument to prove the existence of God. The argument is based on the

fact that since the watch is a complex artifact, it must have been designed by someone, just the same way the nature was designed and this must be God. The argument has been criticized because of being abstract and due to using two unrelated things to draw the conclusion that there must be a designer who designed the nature due its complexity and this must be God. Furthermore, the argument has also been criticized because there exist disorderly in some aspects of the universe and therefore such as the patterns of the stars and it therefore not right to state there is order. The watch is also made by people by the time it comes to function and if the Paley’s argument is true it can be implied that there exists many gods and this contradicts what is commonly believed that only one God exists. The designing of watch and the existence of God are therefore incomparable.

Work Cited

• De Cruz, Helen, and Johan De Smedt. "PALEY's Ipod: THE COGNITIVE BASIS OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT WITHIN NATURAL THEOLOGY." Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science 45.3 (2010): 665-684. Academic Search Premier
• House, H W, and Dennis W. Jowers. Reasons for Our Hope: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Nashville, Tenn: B & H Academic, 2011. Print.
• McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. Internet resource.