William Paley’s Design Argument for God’s Existence Essay

William Paley’s Design Argument for God’s Existence Essay

Instructions/Descriptions

William Paley’s Design Argument for God’s Existence Essay

Your paper should be 3 – 4 pages double spaced It should have 5 parts.

Part I: Introduction Part II: Thesis Statement Part III: Exposition Part IV: Criticism Part V: Conclusion

Part I: Introduction

State what your paper is going to be about. In this case, it will be about God’s existence. William Paley, in his “Natural Theory”, presents an argument for God’s existence. You will be evaluating that argument.

[Order Now]

Part II: Thesis Statement: The thesis statement should be one simple statement. You will either criticize Paley’s argument or you will defend it.

If you are going to criticize it, you should state that. If you are going to defend it, you should that that.

(Important: To criticize his argument is not the same as criticizing his conclusion. You can disagree with the argument without disagreeing with his conclusion. His conclusion is that God exists. His argument is the reasons for thinking his conclusion is true. Keep separate the conclusion that God exists from the argument the reasons for thinking God exists.

If you are going to defend his argument, it is not enough to simply agree with his conclusion. Also, don’t provide your own argument for his conclusion that God exists. Stick with his argument. There are philosophers that have raised objections to his argument. You should state one of those objections. Then, you should defend Paley’s argument against that objection).

[Order Now]

Don’t decide from the very beginning whether you will criticize or defend his argument. The first thing is to do the relevant reading. Then, process the argument.

Be sure that you understand the argument. Then, consider the possible objections. Then, decide whether you agree with his argument or not. If you decide his argument is correct and the criticisms are wrong, then, you can decide to defend his argument. If you decide his argument is wrong and the criticisms are correct, then you can decide to criticize his argument.

Part III: Exposition

This is where you present Paley’s argument for God’s existence. For this, you must click on the link and turn to the reading.

His argument is a design argument. That means the argument identifies things in the material world that possess features that indicate they must have been designed. Take, for example, the human eye. It possesses features that indicate it was designed. If it is designed, it has a designer. And, the only thing capable of designing the human eye is God. Therefore, God exists.

To get you started, he is the skeleton of the argument.

We know a watch has a designer or someone or group of people that designed it.

Here is the argument:

Premise 1: A watch is functionally complex Premise 2: Everything functionally complex must have been designed Premise 3: Everything designed has a designer Conclusion: A watch has a designer

If we accept his argument, then, we should accept this next argument.

Premise 1*: Things in the material world, like the human eye, are functionally complex. Premise 2: Everything functionally complex must have been designed Premise 3: Everything designed has a designer Conclusion 1: Things in the material world, like the human eye, have a designer.

Premise 4: The only being capable of designing something like the human eye is God: Conclusion 2: God is the designer of the human eye Conclusion 3: God exists

You need to flesh out this argument. You should explain what it means for something to be functionally complex. Read very carefully. You must get this part exactly right. Premise 1 says a watch is functionally complex. Premise 1* says things in the material world, like the human eye, is functionally complex. What does that mean?

For Paley, a thing having functional complexity is a reliable indicator that that thing is designed. If a watch is functionally complex, that is a good indicator that the watch is designed. If the human eye is functionally complex, that is a good indicator that it is functionally complex. Why does he think that functional complexity is a good indicator of design?

Premise 4 says that only God is capable of designing the human eye. Why should we think this? Why can’t some being less than God be the designer of the human eye? Why does it have to be God? Think through this carefully. Be sure to provide adequate discussion of each premise. That is, tell us what each of them means and why we should think they are true.

Part IV: Criticism or Defense

This is whether you either criticize or defend the argument.

If you are criticizing, you should raise one objection to one of the premises. Let suppose you are going to criticize premise 2—that everything functionally complex is designed.

If there a way for something to be functionally complex without being designed? Is there a mechanism that results in functional complexity but is not guided by design?

The Darwinian process of evolution is a mechanism. Can this mechanism yield functional complexity? It is not guided by design.

To answer this, you must state what the Darwinian process is. How does this process yield functional complexity? Why should we say it is not guided by any kind of design?

According to Richard Dawkins, the Darwinian evolutionary process is more likely to produce functional complexity than the design process.

Why does he think this? If he’s right, then, that puts premise 2 of Paley’s argument is serious doubt. But then, the entire argument is in doubt.

After you raise your objection. You should provide consider a response to your objection.

Look at a. The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity. The argument here is that for the evolutionary process to account for all functional complexity, e.g., the functional complexity of the human eye, all functional complexity must be cumulatively complex. But, people like Dembski and Behe argue that some functional complexities are “irreducibly complex”.

What does this mean? What does it mean for some complexities to be irreducibly complex? What does it mean for some to be cumulatively complex? Why is it that if some functional complexities are irreducibly complex, some functional complexities simply cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian evolutionary process?

If you are criticizing Paley’s argument, and you think that the Darwinian process of evolution can account for the functional complexity of the human eye, you need to response to the argument from irreducible complexity.

Conclusion: You should state one thing you learned from having completed this paper. What’s the one thing you learned? What’s the one thing the reader should have learned from having read your paper?

William Paley’s Design Argument for God’s Existence Essay

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!