Does the design argument prove that God exists?

Answer 1

The "design argument" is simply that anything complex must have a designer.

For example, if you take apart a computer, and examine all of it's parts, you must conclude that it was designed by an intelligent source. Computers don't randomly appear; there must be a designer.

A human life, for example, is much more complex than any computer. If a computer demands a designer to exist, how much more must human life demand a Designer.

Answer 2

There are only two choices for the origin of things: either Evolution or Special Creation. The Intelligent Design argument disproves Evolution, and therefore this means that everything was directly created by God.

But just be aware that disproving evolution does not automatically make a person a creationist: with apologies to William Shakespeare, some have said "Ä pox on both your houses!" ]

Answer 3

The teleological argument, or design argument, seeks to prove the existence of God by showing that the marvels of nature could only have been created by a higher being for that intended end purpose. It was first formulated by Aquinas, but the most famous exposition of it was was William Paley. He compared the intricacies of the human eye with a watch, and said that there clearly was a Designer. Numerous other analogies have since been put forward, such as the probability of a Boeing aeroplane being put together without a Designer. If the teleological argument makes its case, the God it would prove the existence of is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, nor for example the Hindu Brahma, but an unknown Mind and Power.

In the end, the teleological argument does not make its case and is unable to prove the existence of God. It was fatally weakened by the discovery of evolution. When it was shown that simpler forms of the eye exist in nature and that evolution from the simplest to the most complex is both feasible and credible, the focus of those who support Intelligent Design moved to the bacterium flagella. However, scientists have since shown how the flagella would have evolved. Those who rely on the teleological argument therefore find it important to attempt to disprove or disparage scientific knowledge about evolution in order to maintain the possibility of the design argument achieving its aims.

William H. Halverson (A Concise Introduction to Philosophy) says that those who find the teleological argument impressive are not usually convinced by the argument as such. In other words, the argument helps to confirm the faith of those who already believe in God, but is less useful in bringing people to believe in God.

Answer 4

Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.

Answer 5

The teleological argument for the existence of God is an argument that has two premises. One is that nature exhibits a number of instances of means ordered to an end. The other is a general principle that the ordering of means to ends presupposes the existence of a designer whose intelligence and power are sufficient to account for the product he has wrought. By combining these premises, proponents believe they have satisfied the requirement to prove that a Creator exists, and say that the only possible Creator is the Abrahamic God. Various analogies, such as the human eye or the complexity of a watch are used as examples of the teleological argument.

Presenting both sides of the teleological argument, William H. Halverson (A Concise Introduction to Philosophy) says it is popularly regarded as one of the most persuasive of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, but can also be seen as one of the weakest. The assertion "nature exhibits a number of instances of means ordered to an end" is ambiguous. What nature exhibits is a high degree of lawlike regularity. He says the language used in the argument suggests "purposiveness" or "ordering" and therefore suggests an allegedly factual premise that we ought to look for some being who created this apparent order. This he calls syllogistic smuggling, but we could more simply define as deliberately introducing a syllogistic fallacy.

Even if the teleological argument were sound and effective, it would only prove the past existence of a creator, not his continuing existence.

Answer 6

This would be the Teleological Argument, most famously enunciated by William Paley, who said there can not be design without a designer. His favourite example of design in nature is the eye. He said that its delicate and intricate nature could only have come about by design. Others have suggested that the eye could not have evolved because there is no reason to have an organ that does not yet see - either you have an eye or you do not. However, more recent scientific research does indeed show that there are intermediate stages in the formation of primitive eyes and there is no longer reason to believe eyes did not evolve.

The design argument had some persuasive power prior to the work of Darwin, but what was then thought of as design can now be seen as adaptation.

Answer 7

It is a very powerful pointer towards God.

• The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of Atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).

• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation