DAE

Question 1

The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume)

Answer 1

P1)Human artefacts have ‘spatial order’, a form of ‘teleological’ property whereby parts are arranged in space with high complexity such that they work towards a purpose.

P2) Nature itself also have ‘spatial order’.

P3) Human artefacts have these spatial order because they have been deliberately designed by an intelligent being.

P4) Similar effects typically have similar causes

C1) Therefore, nature has spatial order because they have been deliberately designed by an intelligent being.

P5) Natural entities are much more complicated than human artefacts

P6) This greater complexity probably requires greater intelligence

C2) Therefore this intelligent being which exists probably has much greater intelligence than a human.

C3) Therefore, God exists.

Question 2

Hume’s objections to the design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume)

Answer 2

Natural entities are different from human artefacts.

Human artefacts:
Not living
Not self-sustaining and not self-replicating
All have a clear purpose

Natural artefacts:
Living
Self-sustaining and self-replicating
Nature as a whole has no clear purpose

Both:
Parts are arranged in space with high complexity such that they work towards a purpose.

Question 3

Paley’s deductive design argument: from spatial order

Answer 3

P1: Nature itself has ‘spatial order’, a form of ‘teleological’ property whereby parts are arranged in space with high complexity such that they work towards a purpose.

P2: Nature can only have spatial order if they were deliberately designed by an intelligent being.

C1: Therefore, an intelligent being exists

P3: Nature is of great complexity

P4: This greater complexity requires great intelligence.

C2: Therefore, this intelligent being must be very intelligent.

P5: This intelligent being cannot be part of nature since nature as a whole has design properties that need explaining.

C3: Therefore, this greatly intelligent being must exist outside of the natural world.

C4: Therefore, God exists.

Question 4

The problem of spatial disorder

Answer 4

This argument claims that the universe contains ‘spatial disorder’. By this, we mean that they do not exhibit any order and therefore there are things that are not arranged in space with high complexity such that they work towards a purpose. These might even cause suffering. For example, somebody born blind. This might mean we would have to conclude that a limited being and/or morally indifferent being designed the universe and this does not fit in with God’s necessary attributes.

Question 5

Paley’s reply to the problem of spatial disorder

Answer 5

1) This does not show there is no designer: he uses the analogy that it is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show what design it made, so even with eyes that don’t function correctly some of the time, the only reason we know they are not functioning correctly is because we can tell what their function is meant to be

2) The evidence of order outweighs the evidence of disorder…

3) and this gives us good reason to think that the disorder has a cause other than an evil or ignorant designer

Question 6

Counter-response to Paley’s reply to the problem of spatial disorder

Answer 6

They are not sufficiently persuasive as considering God must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, He should be capable of stopping/not creating evil, know of evil, and want to stop/ not create evil.

Question 7

Objection to Paley’s design argument that God is not the only explanation for spatial order

Answer 7

There are other better explanations for spatial order.

Using evolution, we can explain spatial order by showing that spatial order has evolved from spatial disorder for its advantages.

E.g the human eye exhibits spatial order, but this is only because if it hadn’t been so ordered it wouldn’t have given animals with eyes an advantage, and so wouldn’t have been genetically passed on.

Question 8

Response to God is not the only explanation

Answer 8

Evolution is (or might be) the process that God is using to produce order. This is known as ‘indirect’ design, as God is designing VIA evolution, rather than directly designing.

Question 9

Counter-response: Using evolution is not what God would want/need to do.

Answer 9

Evolution is not a process that would be chosen by God. It is wasteful, cruel, inefficient, and God is perfectly powerful enough to have made things the way they wanted things at the beginning.

Question 10

Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order

Answer 10

P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order

P2: There are two possible hypotheses to explain this:
(H1) temporal order has a scientific explanation; or
(H2) temporal order has a personal explanation

P3: (H2) is better than (H1) because:
(H1) fails: science can only explain the existence of temporal order in terms of more fundamental temporal order. Science cannot itself explain why the fundamental laws of science exist as they do.
(H2) is supported by analogical argument: human temporal order has a personal explanation, so it is likely that natural temporal order also have a personal explanation.

P4: Because the whole physical world contains temporal order, the free intelligent being in question would have to have designed the whole world, and so must be immensely powerful and intelligent, free and disembodied.

C: Therefore, God exists.

Question 11

How Swinburne avoids the problem of spatial disorder:

Answer 11

Unlike with spatial order, there is no temporal disorder. The temporal order in the universe i.e. scientific laws, is consistent everywhere.

Question 12

How Swinburne avoids the God is not the only explanation objection

Answer 12

Using a scientific explanation to try to explain temporal order would not really work since it would not really explain temporal order.
Instead, evolution would just be another example of the kind of temporal order we are trying to explain.
So temporal order in the universe cannot be explained by just giving more examples of temporal order

Question 13

The design argument fails from temporal order as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume)

Answer 13

To argue analogically that something was designed, we would need lots of experience of similar things being designed. The universe is ‘single and unparalleled’ so there is nothing to compare it to

Question 14

Response 1 to Hume’s ‘Unique case’ objection

Answer 14

The universe is unique, but it is still sufficiently similar to human-produced order for us to argue analogically

Question 15

Response 2 to Hume’s ‘Unique case’ objection

Answer 15

Scientists draw conclusions about unique objects, so why can’t theists.

Question 16

Counter response: Response 1 to Hume’s ‘Unique case’ objection

Answer 16

The laws of science are not sufficiently similar to human-produced order.

Question 17

Counter response: Response 2 to Hume’s ‘Unique case’ objection

Answer 17

Scientists shouldn’t do this