With both arguments there is an inconsistency with regards to the theist definition since there seems to be an abrupt leap with regards to the last point `to which everyone gives the name God’ and `is God’ yet there is no indication of the `personal’ God of the theist in the premises. Although there is a counterargument to this position one on the basis that `the cause must contain somehow in itself every perfection of being that is realised in the effect.’36 Finally Hume may have the last say since `How do we know that their
is not more than one necessary being? 37
The Teleological Argument and the Argument form Design:
Often a distinction is made between the Design and teleological arguments38 both of which try to demonstate that an understanding of the orderly character of the universe suggests an intelligent creator or Final Cause. The Deisgn argument can be illustrated as such:
Aquinas: (13th. cent.)
Non sentient beings behave in orderly ways that produce the best results
This ordliness and excellence indicates the presence of design
The presence of a design indicates the presence of a designer.39
Paley: (19th. cent.):
Nature displays beneficent order
Beneficial purpose in mechanical aparatus point to a designer.40
And the teleological:
Swineburne: (20th. cent)
Orderly design in the universe is logically possible to be merely the product of chance but unlikely It is more likely that the cosmos is the product of an infinite theistic God.41
These arguments all reflect empirical premises. They are consistent with the theist’s idea of a personal or intelligent creator who is perfect 42 and instills meaning into the world by His involvment yet don’t really prove if this creator is self-sufficient or exits necessarily. The analogical argument of Paley and the probabilty argument of Swineburne also tell against any accustation that beneficial order could be just blind chance. They do this by the sheer weight of numbers; greater logical possiblity 43 and analogy to the numerous examples in nature.
Yet the chief critic of the design argument, David Hume, raises other objections which need to be mentioned and answered. For example: `Other analogies from nature, like a plant from a seed, seem to reflect an immanent system.’ Yes! But what about the design element in DNA? Also, `Since we have no analogies to reflect the totality of creation then how do we know that design is reflected in the universe as a whole, we could just be imaging design?’ As above, the answer to this and to induction as a whole process is basically `science puts faith in analogies without all the empirical evidence so why can’t the theist?’
Conclusion:
Natural theologcians or theists put forth many speculative arguments which make
claims to prove God’s existence. Yet the three presented in this essay best represent the history of `western mans’ rational contemplation about God since the time of Plato and Aristotle and whether they remain as the pivots about which to draw other theories and thiesm from either in agreement or a reactionary mode remains to be seen. All of them in some respect fail to come up
Bibliography:
Aquinas.Thomas., ` Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident?, Summa
Theologica. (http://www.knight.org/advent/summa.htm)
Aquinas.Thomas., ` Whether God Exists?, Summa Theologica.
(http://www.knight.org/advent/summa.htm)
Britannica Search., God’s Existence. (http://www-lj.eb.com.85/eb.html)
Darwin.F., Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. ( 2 vol. New York: Basic, 1959 )
Evans. K.C., J. Teichman., Philosophy: A Beginners Guide. (Oxford: Blackwell,
1991)
Harrison. P., Scientific Pantheism. (http://members.sol.com/Heraklit/cause.htm)
McInerny. R., Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist.
(http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.htm1)
McInerny. R., On Faith and Belief. (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth10.htm1)
Mizrach. S., Talking Pomo: An Analysis of the Postmodern Movement.
(http://www.clas.ufl.edu/anthro/noetics/pomo.html)
Morton. A., Philosophy in Practice. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996)
Natural Theology., (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nattheol.htm)
Pailin. D.A., Groundwork of Philosophy of Religion. (London: Epworth, 1986)
Plantinga.A., `Rationality and Religious Belief’, The Experince of Philosophy. (eds. D.
Kolak.& D., R. Martin., California: Wadsworth, 1990)
Russell. B., History of Western Philosophy. (London: George Allen & Urwin, 1946)
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God.,
(http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.htm/)
Johnson. D., Sufficient Reason., (http: www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/kant/psr.htm)
Taylor. A.E., Aristotle. (New York: Dover, 1955)
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy., Anselm of Canterbury.
(http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anselm.htm)
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy., Aristotle.
(http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm)
Turner.W., `The Philosophy of Kant’, New Advent Catholic Website
(http://www.knight.org/advent.htm1)
Versey. G., P. Foulkes., Dictionary of Philosophy. (London: HarperCollins, 1990)
Western Philosophical Concepts of God.,
(http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/g/god.htm)
What is Logic., (http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log3_8_96.htm1)