AS Classical Telelogical Argument

a) Explain the classical design argument for God's existence. (25)

The teleological argument is one of the most popular and successful arguments for the existence of God, and is an example of Natural Theology, as it uses a posterior evidence and draws upon observations of the world to support our understanding of God. As it is based on the natural world, the argument has a vast amount of supporting evidence, one of the key concepts being that everything in the universe shows evidence of having complexity and purpose ('telos' itself meaning 'purpose'), suggesting that there was a mind behind the apparent design within the universe, and this must have been designed by a higher being. However this higher being is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, as Platonic theories point towards a 'demiurge', a minor God who created the universe but is not a theistic deity.

One of the main points for the evidence of the classical design argument is that the universe shows order and complexity, and that everything is seemingly governed by natural laws, such as gravity. Isaac Newton was particularly concerned with this idea, demonstrating in 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' that the universe follows mathematical principles, calling this 'the system of the world'. He implied that the world runs very similarly to a machine, with repeated and predictable patterns. Therefore it is only natural to draw the conclusion that if the world is a machine, it needs a machine-maker, as if we know we can't find machines randomly in nature, surely the same applies to the universe? 

Aquinas used very similar inductive logic to Newton, as he observed that everything in the universe follows Natural Laws, such as gravity. Aquinas was also influenced by Aristotle in the way he believed that everything in the universe has a goal or purpose that it acts towards. He then states that as this is even true of inanimate objects, and 'something without intelligence could not move towards an end unless it were directed by a deity with knowledge', there must be a being causing the universe to act in this way, just as there must be an archer responsible for guiding an arrow towards a target, and this being must be God.

This 'design qua purpose' approach was also put forward by William Paley, who makes further use of analogous logic. Paley stated that if we were to come across a rock, it would be fine to assume that there was no explanation for it, and it had come about by chance. However, if we were to come across a watch, we would assume that there must be a rational explanation for its existence. The logic we would use follows as: the watch shows evidence of order, purpose and regularity (with several parts working together for one purpose), things which have order, purpose and regularity have a design, therefore the watch must have had a design and designer. Paley states that as the universe shows order, purpose and regularity just like the watch, the same logic can be used, and therefore we can come to the conclusion that the universe had a designer. 


Mark: 25/25, comment: "Super! Full explanations of all the key scholars, strong use of technical language (maybe a few more quotes would be useful)."