Cleanthes Argument

This essays focuses on Cleanthes’ argument from design in defence for Natural Religion. The Dialogues sets out the definition of Natural Religion. Our inquiry is about religious epistemology: how and whether we can know about God. The central claim is that through observation we can infer God’s existence and nature. Cleanthes argues that through the argument from design we can infer God’s nature (p. 53). Cleanthes' strongest defences, I feel, are 1) Philos' unsustainable scepticism, and 2) his "companions in guilt" argument (p. 60). Although Cleanthes argument is persuasive, I favour Philo and the counterarguments he presents. I will now expand on Cleanthes' defences, followed by Philos' objections. I will conclude by explaining why I do not
Such attribute as infiniteness, perfection, omnipotence and immaterial (no physical matter attached to him). In Part 5, Philo attempts to prove that even if the design argument is valid, the evidence we have from nature still does not provide sufficient reason to infer God’s nature. God is not infinite since as far as we are concerned the universe is not infinite. The universe’s cause, God, cannot be infinite if the effect, the universe, is not. Next, God may not be perfect as we do not know whether our universe is as perfect as it could be. God could be a second-rate designer for all we know. Our universe could be the final result of many previous failures from God. Furthermore, there is not enough evidence to claim God is omnipotent and that there is only one of him. In reference to the Machine Inference, all machines we know of are usually the product of a group of humans. Therefore, it is plausible to reason that the universe was created by a group of deities working together, since it is an effective fit with the argument by analogy. Consequently, this disproves the empirical theist. Also, if the universe was created by a group of deities, then the competence and intelligence of each individual deity would diminish. So perhaps the universe was created by a group of barely competent deities (p. 79). Lastly, if Cleanthes is anthropomorphising God then that would mean He has a body. Since all we have
It looks as though the Argument from Design has been defeated (p. 91 / D 7.18). My main objection against Cleanthes is that there are many complex things which have not be ‘designed’. For instance, tornados are collisions of cool and warm air. Before any scientific discoveries, civilisations would not have known this, rather they would claim it was ‘God’. Thus, why should we accept complexities as proof of God simply because we know nothing else of it? It seems illogical to fill in our gaps of knowledge with ‘God’ without first attempting to prove it could be something else– just as Newton did with gravity. In summary, the design argument attempts to prove God’s nature through observing the world around us. For me, Cleanthes fails to prove any such thing. This is because order does not necessarily imply design (tornado example). So while the design argument may seem convincing at first, it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Philo shows how the analogy is flawed in that it fails to show that order and function imply design and that even if the universe was created by God, the argument fails to show that He is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, or