Philosophy – Design Argument (with Plan)

(b) The world appears externalizeed, so immortal exists. Discuss. (30 marks) Plan * DO NOT GO INTO ONE ABOUT idolS EXISTENCE * Purpose and design appears to exist in disposition * Mathematical melodic phraseulas in nature * Gases in atmosphere * Evolution * If we were do in the image of god, then wherefore ar we much(prenominal) a new species and how come we didnt exist from the beginning of time * Furthermore, why atomic number 18 we the only known hu earths on this planet and why if god was the creator has he made it so we are non suited for other planets?Let us win that it is true to tell apart that there is a clear initiation of purpose and design in nature, the question is whether or not the existence of purpose and design implies the existence of paragon. The design that is apparent in the world fuel certainly be shown not to be the move around of god, or at least God as an omnipotent (he mass do anything), omniscient (he knows everything), omnipresent (H e is everywhere) being. It seems that everything nearly us is some small cog in a large-mouthed piece of clockwork that has been intricately designed for all aspects of the planet to coincide and work with each other.The main strengths of the teleological argument are that the conditions of the world are so perfect for us to live in that it must live been designed. Evidence is everywhere. One can use the William Paleys watch dropr theory in support. Which states that if youre walking along the beach and find a watch you dont assume its there by accident. You know some iodin must form made it due to how intricate the interior and it showing evidence of design this is the analogous with the world.One of the most obvious forms of design is the Fibonacci sequence which appears in nature repeatedly the mathematical pattern can be seen in snail shells and petals of a plant. It seems like this formula was the template for the production of nature, it surely cannot be coincidence tha t it appears in so many different aspects? even perhaps it is man that has nevertheless made this theory up and is in situation finding patterns where they do not exist, it does seem likely due to mans attempt at rationalising everything. Hersh/Davies illustration of mathematizing the world insert here) This is exactly like the Parable of the Gardener an idea where dickens people go on holiday and leave their garden. When they come underpin one of them thinks the garden has gotten overgrown and has been neglected, whereas the other sees evidence that a gardener must open been tending to it. It is an example of how people can look at the same evidence yet come to different conclusions. The parable of the gardener shows how two people can view the same thing unless stage it in completely different ways.This can be seen by secern the way a theistic views the world and the way an evolutionary scientist views the world. The theist sees evidence of design, whereas the scientis t sees evidence of evolution. It has long been demonstrated how subjective selection can simulate the appearance of design in short, you do not assume a agent, design can be the result of a process. If we give products such as an iPhone, we notice that the product has evolved technologically over time. in so far it most certainly had a designer.Therefore, we can see that evolution is not necessarily at odds with creation. It could be the case that the world was designed, by a designer, but has been upgrading through with(predicate) a process of evolution and natural selection ever since. The problem with this view for the theist is that the theist wants to preserve that God is omni-omni-omni, and therefore would earn got it right first time and would not have created an imperfect world that needs to improve itself through evolution. Yet for the agnostics this is a difficult point to comprehend as there is no proof of a god or designer.Yet as far back as the 13th century Thom as Aquinas argued that articles of faith cant be scientifically proven and that its a mistake to try. It seems that the argument of the existence of god is the creation of man himself. There are some serious discrepancies mingled with the bible and version of events known to all and the empirical evidence. According to biblical sources, man was made in gods image on the sixth day of creation. Yet science and empirically backed sources make it clear that the existence of the human race is relatively new and was certainly not formed at the time of the earths creation.The theists can argue that the bible is not meant to be taken literally, but that God still created the world, only not in six days in the way described in the biblical story. Furthermore, if humans are the forebode race then surely their existence would be found on other planets, which currently there is no evidence of whatsoever. Michael Behe came up with the irreducible Complexity, an argument designed to counter ev olution. He argues that there are things in the world (such as bacterial flagellum and the human eye) that are so complex, they couldnt have just arisen by chance they must have been designed for the purpose they fulfil.Yet, the human eye is not, actually, that well designed. It is back to front line for one thing So perhaps arguments such as these are not well supported when the subject in favour is greatly flawed. Perhaps then, the Fibonacci sequence is a mere act of chance that has been evolved through natural selection as the best form of survival. However, this is also undefined and does not quite explain how such a complex form of maths just evolved repeatedly at bottom nature.Again this is a clear meter reading of design and must prove that there has been planning within the planet, and on a larger scale within the universe. After all, there are solar systems which survive due to the most fragile balance of gravity, these could tardily have not worked and it is of such small chances that it has. Hume often compared the universe to a vegetable, something that grows of its own accord if the environment is right there have been examples of failed planets just as there are sometimes failed crops.This leads onto the delicate mix of gases within earths atmosphere that sustain life. If any one of these gases was to flip its ratio, the consequences would be catastrophic, causing the likely extinction of life within the planet. some marvel at the slim chances that our planet is the way it is, yet they seem to forget that there have been periods of millions of years where there has been no such life due to the mix of gases being wrong, or temperatures being too extreme.However, having said this there must be design. Perhaps not in the universe as we know so little about it, but at least within the planet. It is not necessarily true that the designer is perfect, as of course there are flaws yet the sheer feature of every item in nature is so intricate tha t it makes one question its design and if something had a role in creating it. Conclusion there was a designer, but that designer was not (an omni-omni-omni) God