This is an essay plan for Teleological argument within the Metaphysics of God unit of Philosophy AQA a-level.
- unique and strong argument that will help you stand out
- Comes with a written introduction and conclusion
- 3 core arguments with back and forth counterarguments, to get A03 mark...
ASSES TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
INTRO: Outline teleological and the distinction between spatial and temporal order
Where spatial versions (Paley) fail due to evolution, temporal versions
(Swinburne) allow for the high probability of a designer. As teleological
arguments are inductive, we can conclude temporal versions succeed in
providing high probability for God’s existence.
➢ Observe man-made objects being designed, no experience of this for nature. Makes a big
jump: analogy of the eye = more like naturally forming vegetable.
HUME: Spatial disorder (poor design)
➢ E.g. Ostriches have wings and humans have appendixes. These play no part in any function
and therefore either don’t need a designer or at the very least, show a poor designer which
cannot be omnipotent or omniscient and therefore cannot be God.
PALEY: Imperfections don’t mean no design
➢ If someone came across a watch lying in a eld, they would still infer that it was designed,
even if it contained defects. A badly designed object is still a designed object.
Why so many instances? (questions perfection)
Defeating for Paley
DARWIN: Evolution
➢ The universe was not designed to t life, but rather life evolved to t the universe. We no
longer need God to explain the spatial order of the natural world.
Paley can’t respond
➢ His argument relies of spatial order which evolution can explain
SWINBURNE: doesn’t explain temporal order
➢ Evolution relies on natural laws (temporal) to explain the changes in spatial order. Natural
laws are brute ∴ can’t be explained further. Cause must therefore be a personal agent (God).
DAWKINS: God ≠ simplest explanation
Minor
➢ Dawkins argues God isn’t an explanation at all. We might as well simply say: ’We don’t know.’
Swinburne: argument from induction not deduction
➢ Swinburne’s argument is inductive, if it was aiming to be deductive we could accept the
criticism we should simply say “we don’t know”. However, it’s aiming to prove the existence
of God is highly probable and God is still the simplest explanation we have.
Swinburne’s teleological argument shows high likelihood for the need of a personal
agent and therefore succeeds as an inductive argument for God’s existence.
fi fi fi
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sashamortonsmyth. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.88. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
