Paleys Arguement From Design, And Humes Counter-analogy :: essays research papers

Humes counter-analogy does non copy in undermining Paleys crease from design. Paley understandably explains to his reader that man ar so involved that we must stir been make by a designer. Hume argues that since the domain is non a homophile art, and is more than ilk an animal, it does not claim a designer. Paley argues that the labyrinthineity and functionality of a adopt distinctly shows that it was make by a designer. Animals argon as well composite plant and functional, therefore, Hume does not flip-flop the argument adequately enough to effectively counter it.      Paley lays his argument as such a check into is like the human beings in complexity and functionality, a watch call for a designer, therefore, the universe needs a designer as well. Paleys argument centers around the metaphor between a watch and the universe . He come ins out that the watch is complicated with umpteen parts, yet all work together to anatomy a functional machine. Paley shows in his argument that all the pieces of the watch are target together for a definite purpose. No matter how many watches were made before this one, Paley explains that the watch still has a maker. Watches cannot be knowing by other watches, both(prenominal) professional being must have pissd at least the first one. The designer obviously understands how the watch whole shebang and how to create it to function properly.      With this premise, Paley introduces the connection between the watch and our universe. He explains clearly that if a watch needs a designer, surely the far more complex universe should need one to. Paley justifies the existence of God through this watch and universe simile. He concludes that if a watch needs a superior designer, then the universe needs a maker as well, this maker being God.     Hume attempts to counter Paleys argument by express that the universe is more like an animal than a w ork of human art. He says that because the universe is not a human art, it does not need a maker, just as animals do not need makers. Therefore, Paley argues, the universe also does not need a designer, and because of this, God does not exist. Hume does not effectively counter Paleys argument because he simply replaces a complex watch with an even more complex animal in his statements. He does not successfully address the fact that animals were at some point created as well.Paleys Arguement From Design, And Humes Counter-analogy essays research papers Humes counter-analogy does not succeed in undermining Paleys argument from design. Paley clearly explains to his reader that humans are so complicated that we must have been made by a designer. Hume argues that since the universe is not a human art, and is more like an animal, it does not need a designer. Paley argues that the complexity and functionality of a watch clearly shows that it was made by a designer. Animals are also comp lex and functional, therefore, Hume does not change the argument adequately enough to effectively counter it.      Paley lays his argument as such a watch is like the universe in complexity and functionality, a watch needs a designer, therefore, the universe needs a designer as well. Paleys argument centers around the simile between a watch and the universe . He points out that the watch is complicated with many parts, yet all work together to form a functional machine. Paley shows in his argument that all the pieces of the watch are put together for a definite purpose. No matter how many watches were made before this one, Paley explains that the watch still has a maker. Watches cannot be designed by other watches, some superior being must have created at least the first one. The designer obviously understands how the watch works and how to create it to function properly.      With this premise, Paley introduces the connection between the watc h and our universe. He explains clearly that if a watch needs a designer, surely the far more complex universe should need one to. Paley justifies the existence of God through this watch and universe simile. He concludes that if a watch needs a superior designer, then the universe needs a maker as well, this maker being God.     Hume attempts to counter Paleys argument by saying that the universe is more like an animal than a work of human art. He says that because the universe is not a human art, it does not need a maker, just as animals do not need makers. Therefore, Paley argues, the universe also does not need a designer, and because of this, God does not exist. Hume does not effectively counter Paleys argument because he simply replaces a complex watch with an even more complex animal in his statements. He does not successfully address the fact that animals were at some point created as well.