The Teleological Argument Analysis

Megan Castro

Professor Jason Southworth

PHI 2010

January 25, 2016

Paper #1: Paley In William Paley 's The Teleological Argument, Paley concludes that God exists-or rather a "watchmaker", i.e. a designer of the universe, exists. Paley presents his argument with the over-stretching of the analogy that the existence of such an intricate design that is a watch, has a great purpose, as opposed to a stone that is of no use, and serves as proof of a watchmaker. Paley uses the example of a watch to explain and conclude that the universe is just the same. The intricate design that is the universe has a great purpose and serves as proof of a universe maker, i.e. God, which further concludes that God exists. In Paley 's argument, he proposes

The watch, much like the universe, behaves in a set order with "laws" set forth. Just how, for example, the laws of motion have set rules for the foundation for classical mechanics, the watch/universe has order to how things work. Although each watch may be of different shape or size, the insides are very much the same. When Paley discusses the mechanics of the watch, being that he lived in the era of the pocket watch and not today 's digital watches, he describes how every single wheel and pulley equably make their way to gracefully change each hand from one minute to the next. This is Paley 's way of describing every living thing and how the universe makes remarkable adaptations changing from one minute to the next. Paley 's argument substantially works. Half the time. In a handful of his issues, Paley arguably makes sense and is able to make his way towards his conclusion. But in a few of his points, Paley can 't make his point logically work. Instead of trying to convince his readers, all Paley really does is present the issue and then indirectly says "because I say so" in efforts to reach the conclusion that

I disagree with Paley because much of the reasoning 's he gives to his arguments are either false or can easily be refuted. I also disagree with Paley because even though he does follow through to his conclusion, the premises of illogically and indirectly saying "because I say so", when he cannot find a logical answer, is not a valid argument. Much of Paley 's argument to prove the existence of a creator of the universe, or God, ignores many counter-arguments. When Paley begins to explain there being a purpose and function of the watch, which is clearly to tell time, he is also not able to identify as to what the exact purpose and function of the universe is. Paley leaves this issue with the renowned “because I said so”, leaving readers to feel as though they have no choice but to agree. Not only does Paley leave his arguments open-ended, but he also leads himself right into the hole of contradiction. In his first issue, Paley concludes that being that there is proof of a watch/universe, someone or something had to have created it. But in efforts to prove one creator of the universe exists, he presents not one, but the many creators it took to make the watch. This would conclude to many gods having participated in the creation of the universe. According to philosophy 's definition of God, this conclusion rules out the characteristic of there being only one,