Design claims and the existence of God
Design claims are personal experiences that are used to justify God's life. These arguments begin by attempting to construct various observations made about the earth that are consistent with a super intelligent model, and then adding God's presence as an apt description for these observations. Since the principles of design and cause are so closely linked, design facts are often known as teleological arguments. Using premises, design arguments expand on the presence of God (Manson 78).
The fundamental principles of design
One of the fundamental principles is that the universe contains empirical substances that can be observed, felt, heard, and tasted. Another sub-argument concludes that practical things are the persuasive facts of design with high cognitive ability while the last premise asserts that the most appropriate justification for the reason that the earth contains the materials in it is due to the presence of a brilliant designer who brought the material universe into existence and exhibits the empirical substances. Several contemporary and classic versions of the facts from design have been developed. This text will criticize the reason for the existence of God from simple analogy.
Simple analogy argument
This version of the design argument was developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some philosophers such as Bentley and Derham made certain scientific discoveries around the 16th century and used them to reason on the existence of a deity who had high cognitive powers. Derham, for instance, observed specific features in birds such as eyes, eardrum and their digestive system. The law of gravity discovered by Newton perplexed Richard Bentley and convinced him of the existence of a deity (The Works of Richard Bentley, D.d 221). These philosophers made efforts in providing arguments that were scientifically based.
Complexity and interconnectedness of the universe
When one looks around the universe and critically thinks about it in whole and every section of it, you will discover that it resembles one substantial machine that is sub-partitioned into many of the smaller devices which has then been subdivided to an extent human beings cannot or any school of thought can be able to explain. These different mechanisms and their smallest partitions are connected to each other with an exactness that forces all people who have thought about them critically to admire them. The interconnectedness of these machines and their parts is far much complex such that no human thoughts, designs, and wisdom can explain there seems to have to adopt ways to results in all nature that have the resemblance.
The resemblance of the intelligent designer with the human mind
Since the results are similar to each other, it can be deduced that, by all the laws of the analogy, the sources are also identical and therefore, the developer of the universe to some extent resembles the mind of human beings though has an advanced institution of thoughts considering the mighty work executed. By this reason a posteriori, we can prove that a Deity exists and has the resemblance of the mind and intelligence of a human. From the simple analogy explanation, the earth is similar to the intelligent makings of human beings as it portrays the design. According to the human thinking, the plan is the product of a deity who is a creative being.
Critique of the simple analogy argument
The simple analogy facts are substantially convincing. However, I tend to reject the analogy on two main bases. I do not support the explanation of the relationship between the earth with substances that are found in it and any human-made object. For instance, when we see a tarmac road, we assert that it is the work of a civil engineer because he/she is the vessel of the effect that we have seen therefore we can merely relate the impact to the cause. Nevertheless, it is impossible for us to affirm that the world is similar to a tarmac road that we can with similar surety deduce the same reason. The intelligent designer argument succeeds in convincing us that a brilliant designer created the world, but it hardly provides coherent reasoning about how the designer is like. Human beings have a variety of experiences with most human-made materials such as vehicles, pots, tarmac roads, and houses.
We know that brilliant designers have manufactured these artifacts because we have seen the designers producing the items severally. Nevertheless, no one can practically justify who the maker of the universe is because we do not have empirical facts to support our explanation and hence the simple analogy argument does not provide a substantial reason for the existence of God. Therefore, we cannot confidently assert that whatever created the universe is similar to the human designers that we know. The analogy fails to explain the nature or the characteristics of the intelligent designer. The empirical operations and traits of the deity have not been brought out in the analogy. Therefore, the quality of the designer is mysterious and beyond human understanding.
The other basis of my criticism is the assertion that material world and human-made objects have a similar cause(Hume 122). Regardless of the resemblance between natural objects and artifacts, it does not ascertain that the all-accurate Deity exists and is the one who created the universe. In the simple analogy, no explanation would confidently justify the deduction that the maker of the earth is precisely intelligent. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence in the analogy showing there is only one original creator. For instance, more than two people join in constructing a vehicle or a ship, and therefore, the possibility of having many deities connecting to form the universe cannot be out ruled.
The other part of this argument lies on the resemblance of the universe and human-made machines because of their similar characteristics such as structure, order and the way some of them are similarly harmonized to perform the same function. When we observe that some tools have unity, organ and order, we deduce that there must be a planner who has produced them. However, when we shift to the case of the universe, the view is different because we lack the experience of its cause. Therefore, the analogy tries to explain that we can rationally deduce that God exists and He is of human intelligence. The analogy portrays weakness in relating similarity between the world and human-made objects because the two have no close resemblance and therefore the justification on these grounds is uncertain and baseless.
The other issue is on the accurateness of God. We cannot commence by assuming that God is all-precise. It is not possible to deduce the perfectness of God without sufficient experiential facts that are the sources of enough and comprehensible consistent hypothesis (Hume 122). The present phenomena and scenes are disorderly and filled with ill in comparison with a perfect standard. There are many diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer and diabetes, natural calamities such as earthquakes, idolatry, paganism and atheism. All these problems are clear indicators that the perfectness of the Deity according to the analogy is questionable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are several design arguments employed by various philosophers to explain the existence of God. Among them is the intelligent designer argument. This simple analogy relates the existence of God with a resemblance of artifacts and natural objects. It also compares the similarity of the human mind and intelligence with the Deity. It also explains the perfectness of the deity about the orderliness, unity and the structure of the natural objects such as eyes and eardrums. The universe and the artifacts lack close similarity, and therefore it is impossible to deduce the likeness of whatever created the world. The perfectness of the intelligent designer cannot be asserted since no one has observed the deity make the universe to deduce the characteristics or operations. Relating the cause and effect is also not a sufficient explanation. We connect the artifacts with their designers because we have seen the designers make the objects on several occasions. For the universe, it is a different case since there are no practical facts to explain how or who created it.
Works Cited
Hume, David. The Philosophical Works of David Hume.Printed for A. Black and W. Tait, 1826.
Manson, Neil A. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge, 2003.
The Works of Richard Bentley, D.d. Francis Macpherson, 1836.
