Richard Swinburne's Two Teleological Argument

He states that since the series of dependent beings couldn’t be caused by any external or internal source, that it would have to be cause “absolutely by nothing”. He then states that this is a “contradiction to be done in time; and because duration in this case makes no difference.” He also states that it is a “contradiction to suppose it done from eternity.” Since the universe has parts that come into existence at one occasion and not another, it must have a cause. There could supposedly be an infinite regress of causes if there was evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as the cause.

Lastly, his fourth argument assumes that things can be created by matter therefore if other things say otherwise it would be disregarded (Paley,

Therefore: (5) God exists. It has been argued that this argument does not lead to the idea of God, but that it suggests that motion requires an explanation, E.g. Big Bang Theory. The Teleological Argument, or Design Argument attempts to prove the existence of God by way of the nature, beauty and order of the world. To say the world is 'ordered' is to mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose.

To begin with, I believe the teleological argument for the existence of God substantiates that a greater force must exist. The teleological argument comes from the philosopher Paley. The argument states that

During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and

The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments collectively strive to prove one point, the existence of God. Ontological arguments lean on reasoning to prove its point of an a priori being or existence. Cosmological arguments focus on the idea that our infinite and expanding universe had to have been created by God or a higher being, due to the complexity of the universe itself. Teleological argument emphasizes on the idea that God constructed the universe for the sole purpose of completing an end result in which the universe was made for.

William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a

Summarize and give an example for either the Cosmological or Teleological Proof for God’s existence.

The Anthropic principle is a key feature of the Design argument and suits the theory of Design qua Regularity proposed by F.R. Tennant showing that science and religion are one in the same. He argues that human life flourishes on earth, therefore there must have been a supreme designer, that designer being God. Tennant accepts the scientific reasoning of evolution as a fine balance of ‘’fine tuning’’ and God’s chosen way to support life. Tennant also argues that ‘’the world could so easily have been chaotic’’ and that ‘’the universe is not chaotic, nature is the outcome of intelligent design.’’ Others argue that the earth runs so smoothly and everything works together therefore ‘’The world is compatible with a single throw of a dice and common sense is not foolish in suspecting the dice has been loaded’’ cited by Vardy. James Lovelock of the 20th century furthered the anthropic principle in ways of the Gaia Hypothesis, ‘’engineering on a planetary scale’’ cited by Vardy. He suggests that the oxygen content in the air, the salt content in the sea and the temperature of the earth are all precise in order for human life to flourish. If the oxygen content in the air

According to the fourth premise of the Cosmological Argument, if something has always existed, then reality is either a series of dependent beings, or there is an independent being that has existed at all times. This premise, supported by PSRa, is based around the belief that there must be an infinite succession of dependent beings, or an always-present independent being. In other words, the existence of a series of dependent beings would be caused by the series before it, which would have been caused by the series before it, which would have been caused by the series before it, and so on. The other possible explanation would be that there is an independent being that always existed and acted as starting point to this infinite pattern, as PSRa states that there must be an explanation to what would have caused the start of the whole series.

His first argument was the breathtaking beauty of nature and that nature was not created by matter alone. There is a greater and powerful God who created all this beauty for us humans. Through the beauty of the nature, we can communicate and feel the presence of God. Many people will argue that beauty is subjective, however I believe we cannot deny the beauty of a sunset, sunrise or the magnificence of the ocean.

The second argument is for the notion that the existence of God can be demonstrated. It states that everything has a cause. He claims that by using the theory of cause and effect we can demonstrate the existence of God. If we say that every effect has a cause, we can go further and further to infinity. But because of our own logic, we know that this is not true. We know that it must end somewhere. That somewhere is a first cause, and that cause is God. This is very similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. He goes on to say that through the effects, we can demonstrate that God does exist, but we cannot know what God is like.

Many writers refer to this argument as the uncreated creator proof. All things in nature are transitory and thus may exist or not exist. Because nature is time limited things of the world either exist or they do not. Natural things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Because of that reality, we can reason that at one time nothing temporal existed. Through this line of thinking we can conclude that not all beings exist as contingent beings but there must be a being that exists because of its own necessity. This being is the uncreated creator that we know as God. This uncreated creator brings all

To get to this conclusion, he states that “there is an order of efficient causes” (470). By this, he means there is a chain of efficient causes because one thing cannot be the efficient cause of itself. Something must come before it. But he also says that the efficient causes cannot become an infinite line or chain. Something must be first to cause everything or at least start the chain of efficient causes.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.