Whether God is the best or only explanation

• Strength of the design argument:

  • Basis in Aquinas’ Natural theology
  • Aquinas and Paley position their arguments carefully to not claim too much
  • They accept that the design argument at most shows there is some designer of great power, but it doesn’t prove the Christian God in particular
• A. McGrath characterises Aquinas’ natural theology as showing an “a posteriori demonstration of the coherence of faith and observation” which demonstrates the “inner consistency of belief in God”
• Weakness of the design argument:

  • Hume’s ‘committee of Gods’ objection
  • Hume argues that evidence of design in the universe doesn't support the claim that it was designed by the God of classical theism
  • Hume suggests there could be multiple designers – ‘a committee of Gods’, weakening the argument for monotheism
• Swinburne agrees with Hume that the design argument cannot prove the designer has the attributes of the God of classical theism, suggesting the need for other arguments
• Swinburne believes Ockham’s razor can be used against Hume’s claims, as one God being responsible for the design of the universe is a simpler explanation than multiple designers
• Support and value for faith provided by an argument for some generic designer is very low
• Hume’s critique doesn’t work against a posteriori arguments based in Aquinas’ style of natural theology, as they seek to show it is reasonable to believe in a designer
• There are an infinite number of Gods that could be imagined
• Simply showing the logical consistency of God with observation is insufficient, as actual evidence is required
• It is not rational to believe something simply because it is consistent with observation; faith should be supported by evidence
• Using the design argument to support belief in some generic God is valid, but not to support belief in any particular God