Similarities Between Hume And Paley

I. Introduction There have been many philosophical discussions that try to explain the creation of the universe. Paley attempts to illustrate the creation of the universe through an analogy to argue for intelligent design. However, Hume disagrees with the analogy and believes that the universe and an object such as a watch or house are incomparable when looking at their formation specifically. Hume is able to demonstrate that the design analogy is somewhat incoherent.
II. Paley Paley believes that if a person was walking and found a stone, then that person would possibly suppose that stone had been there forever. However, if a person discovered a watch on the ground, then that person would not believe that the watch had been there forever.
Additionally, whatever the person found in the place where he found the watch, must have the internal formation or something else. Furthermore, this configuration may be the structure now exhibited of the inner workings of the watch, as well as different structures. (Paley 178). Paley believes a person would not have his senses if they believed the aforementioned notion. Fifthly, he does not think it would produce in a person’s inquiry more satisfaction to be answered that there existed in things a principle of order, which had disposed the parts of the watch into their present form and situation. Moreover, Paley believes the person never knew a watch be made by the principle of order; nor can this person form an idea of what is meant by a principle of order, distinct from the intelligence of the watchmaker. (Paley 178) Sixthly, Paley believes that a person would be surprised to hear that the mechanism of the watch was not proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to believe so. (Paley
Paley clarifies and states that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more if possible, they go beyond them in a number and variety of cases. However, he believes in a multitude of cases, that nature is not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity. (Paley