William Paley Design Argument

Design arguments are arguments declaring that God exists by comparing the natural world with human creations. One of the most famous design arguments was written by William Paley. Paley compared the natural world to that of a watch. He said that a watch could in no way form naturally as it was far too complex. This is the basis for all design arguments; our world and everything in it is too complex to be created so randomly and without help. This argument is not about a religious God or Heaven or Hell, it is simply about looking at the infinite coincidences that occurred in a specific order to allow for life and survival; then contemplating if they are coincidences at all. William Paley would say that, of course, they are not coincidences as
One is that while human creations and parts of nature are very similar they are also very different. Human creations are just as complex as nature. Nature, however, is far superior because it is self-perpetuating. The woodpecker’s tongue is incredibly complex and the woodpecker’s offspring will have the same complex tongue and on and on. These parts of nature can go on and on without the designers help while human creations require constant upkeep and guidance. Watches will sooner or later lose time or gears will rust or break and require a designer’s repair. This is one of the key differences that separate God’s designs from that of human’s. Another difference is that everything that humans create serves one or two distinct purposes. Human artifacts are created with those distinct purposes in mind though when we look at our solar system or Earth and at humans and animals there are an infinite number of possible purposes. The final question of this objection is: does it matter if God is finite and imperfect? This designer obviously has much more power and intelligence than that of humans and being finite and imperfect should not hinder its ability to create. If God is infinite and imperfect, why would he use his infinite and perfect power to create such flawed beings as humans? The objection dealing with the conclusion of multiple Gods asks the same question as the first objection. What is changed by the conclusion of multiple Gods? Robert Hambourger talks about this in his article titled “Can Design Arguments Be Defended Today”. In it, he talks about the great achievement that it would be to prove that the natural phenomena were created by intentional action, even if it could not be proved to have been done by a single entity (286). Ultimately, it should not matter what created our known universe as much as if our universe was created. Therefore, the objections to design arguments