Critique Of Paley's Ontological Argument
Paley’s argument cannot be used to show there is an “impersonal, accidental forces because of its complexity. Thus, stumbling upon such an object provides good reason to conclude that there is a personal agent who designed it.” DePoe explains that Paley’s watch example suffered a major set back by the introduction of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution offered a naturalistic explanation as to how life could possess the intricacy of “parts that have been adapted to perform their specific functions.” DePoe explains that an atheist’s main retort to the teleological argument is the fantasy of natural mechanisms operating “by chance or necessity that, if provided enough time, could account for complexities found in nature.” Darwinism has
…show more content…
The Anthropological Argument.
The anthropological argument attempts to demonstrate the existence of God from human conscience and morality. It goes to the effect that human beings have a natural inclination to do that which is good even when the opposite would be egoistically beneficial. This argument concludes that the motivation for our ultraistic acts is our expectation for rewards or punishment in the life here-after, for the deeds committed in this present existence. The Rewarder and the Punisher is the one we refer to as God.
Anthropology is the study of mankind, and the subject of this argument is what separates us from other forms of life. Are we, as evolutionists theorize, only the highest evolved animal on our planet? Or, is the answer that we are the dominant life because we are in fact created entirely different from the animal world? The anthropological argument explains who we are and how we relate to God. The truth is that humanity differs from all other life because we are self-aware, we think rationally, and we are imaginative. No other life displays our level of intelligence, creativity, and emotion. So, are we the dominant life because we possess these qualities? Or, do we possess these qualities because we were created to be
The Anthropological Argument.
The anthropological argument attempts to demonstrate the existence of God from human conscience and morality. It goes to the effect that human beings have a natural inclination to do that which is good even when the opposite would be egoistically beneficial. This argument concludes that the motivation for our ultraistic acts is our expectation for rewards or punishment in the life here-after, for the deeds committed in this present existence. The Rewarder and the Punisher is the one we refer to as God.
Anthropology is the study of mankind, and the subject of this argument is what separates us from other forms of life. Are we, as evolutionists theorize, only the highest evolved animal on our planet? Or, is the answer that we are the dominant life because we are in fact created entirely different from the animal world? The anthropological argument explains who we are and how we relate to God. The truth is that humanity differs from all other life because we are self-aware, we think rationally, and we are imaginative. No other life displays our level of intelligence, creativity, and emotion. So, are we the dominant life because we possess these qualities? Or, do we possess these qualities because we were created to be