‘Assess the credibility of the design argument for the existence of God’ (12 marks) The design argument for the existence of God is largely based upon the idea that the cumulative effect of all of the order and purpose that exists within the universe is proof that it could not have come about by chance, it must have been designed and the only thing powerful enough to do this is God. I believe that the weaknesses of the design argument are too significant to overcome and therefore it is not a convincing argument to demonstrate the existence of God. Dawkins argued that although it may be unlikely that the universe would be created by a single chance but it is not impossible that it would be the result of a series of chances and thus not the work of God. Dawkins criticised the theist for looking at the world through ‘purpose coloured spectacles’ wanting to see divine design and purpose when really we should simply appreciate how lucky we are to exist in the first place. Many people believe that the biggest challenge to the idea that God designed the universe comes from the dysteleological argument advocated by Hume and Mill that questions if the world was designed, why is there evil and suffering? Surely if the world had been designed by an all powerful and all loving God, these things would not exist. Aquinas asserted that non-rational beings can be observed as working towards an end goal or purpose. He believed that as non-rational beings lacked the required intelligence, they could not be doing this by themselves and so must be being guided by a superior intelligent being and concluded that this must be God. Paley responded to the challenge from evil and suffering and asserted that these do not prove the absence of design, they may be part of a design by God that we do not understand or else are evidence of poor design, but design nevertheless. In relation to Aquinas’ argument from beneficial order, even if we accept that non-rational beings are being guided by some more intelligent force, it is still a big leap to say that this force is in fact God. Despite Paley’s defence that evil and suffering may be the result of poor or unrevealed designed, this still does not address the fact that they are inconsistent with the idea of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Taking into account the vast amount of flaws with the argument, I am compelled to believe that it fails to offer credible proof for the existence of God.

‘Assess the credibility of the design argument for the existence of God’ (12 marks) Clarify the key ideas Order and purpose Explain what the argument is Outline opinion Not credible Idea Dawkins – purpose Evil and suffering Argument Against Aquinas – beneficial order Paley – poor design is still design Counter Argument Big leap Not consistent with loving God Conclusion