Design argument

• Design argument

  • A posteriori argument
  • A philosophical argument for an argument in which a conclusion is reached based on evidence which has been observed
  • For example collecting fingerprints, DNA and witness
• Aquinas

  • Everything follows natural laws
  • If things follow natural laws they have purpose
  • However, things that cannot think need to be directed by someone else
  • Arrow analogy: An arrow can only serve its purpose by being directed by a living being (A human)
  • In conclusion, everything that cannot think for itself is directed by something that does thing (God)
• Strength‘s of Aquinas’ argument

  • Cosmological argument seems to be supportive by inductive scientific arguments like he big bang
  • Swinburne- Co-presence “Simple patterns of behaviour or objects…In accordance to laws o nature.”
  • Evidence can be observed in nature
• Weakness of Aquinas’ argument

  • Doesn’t point to the existence of God
  • Not everything has a purpose
  • Infinite regress
  • Could be a natural reclaim to natural conditions.
• Paley

  • “We asked how this stone came to be”, everything has a purpose
  • ”Formed and adjusted as to produce motion.”, An intelligent designer (God)
  • “Exists in the work of nature.” Things are made for a reason, they just adapt to the environment
• Paley

  1. Nature shows a complex design
  2. Need or a designer to create design elements of a human eye
  3. This intelligent designer must be God
  4. Elements of design in nature
  5. The only thing intelligent to design something as complex as the human eye is God.
• Paley focuses on thing that fit together for a particular purpose

  Aquinas focuses on things that have a cause and effect
• Paley strengths

  • Fits with human reason
  • Can observe design in nature
  • Simple and straight forward to understand
• Paley weaknesses

  • Hume, “We have no understanding of god.. elements of design in man made things can be applied to creation.”
• Argument from regularity


  Aquinas’ argument is in favour of regularity of succession. This means his argument is based on the fact that things in nature follow certain laws that lead to certain results.

  For example, if you let go of a glass and it falls to floor, the event that follows s that the glass smashes, this is natural law
• Criticism’s of the design argument

  • Hume concludes arguments about God are futile as those who claim to have experienced him can’t repeat that for others
  • Judgements are based on experience, if we have no experience we can’t make a judgement
  • Hume disagrees with cause and effect, causation is a habit of association
  • Instead of basing morality on religious and divine sources of authority, Hume seeks an empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature
• Swinburne

  • We don’t simply see perceived order rather than disorder, but are amazed by the fact that there is order and not disorder
  • Just because we are there to observe it doesn‘t make it less important, this is illustrated by the card-shuffling machine parable
• Swinburne: Card-shuffling machine

  • More chance of shuffling ten packs and pulling out an ace of hearts than for the world to be randomly designed
  • Probability of God designing the universe is likely than him not
  • Argues that when coupled with other arguments for the existence of God, such as cosmological ad ontological arguments, the design argument strengthens the likeLinwood that God exists
• Swinburne strengths

  • Strong Anthropocene principle states that it’s necessary for the universe to have properties it did, and the fine tunings in its creation, and that these didn’t happen but were necessary
  • The universe was intelligently constructed and could not have come into being in any other way
• Swinburne weaknesses

  • Weak anthropic principle states that because we are here, the universe must have necessary properties for life
  • If not we would not be here
  • Does not explain why the universe is as it is
• Criticisms of design argument: Naturalistic explanations 


  Critics argue that many of the features of the natural world citied as evidence can be explained by naturalistic process (like evolution and biological complexity) No need for a supernatural designer to account for these.
• Criticisms of the design argument: Anthropic principle

  There are such fine tunings in the world that it must have been set intentionally for life. Critics argue that it provides a naturalistic explanation, suggesting that the universe must be compatible with life so we can exist and observe them.

  • The universe doesn’t need a designer; It’s simply the way it is because we wouldn’t be able to observe it otherwise.
• Criticisms of the design argument: Arguments from evil


  Critics argue that the problem of evil makes it hard for there to be an all-powerful objective designer
• Criticisms of the design argument: Imperfections in design

  Critics point to imperfection in the natural world as evidence against a perfect and intelligent designer. If the world was created by an omniscient and benevolent designer, why does it contain suffering?