1. It is reasonable to infer the existence of God from the fact that the world is as it is; just like the cosmological argument. We are going to consider the argument that the world seems designed in some way and therefore it is reasonable to state that there is a designer…you guessed it…God!

2. More commonly known as the argument from design, the argument is also called a teleological argument. Teleos is Greek for ‘aim’ or ‘goal’ or ‘purpose’. It is a teleological argument because it suggests that natural things in the world such as the human eye have been designed to have a purpose. It is also an a posteriori argument because it is based on experience of the world.

3. It is also an inductive argument, this means that the premises of the argument at best make the conclusion probable even highly probable but does not entail the conclusion.

4. Complex machines are made up of component parts all put together for a purpose. These machines are put together by an intelligent designer.

5. The world is like a complex machine and therefore by analogy must have an intelligent designer.

6. William Paley formulated the most well known version of the argument. The universe is like a watch. If you stumble across a watch you would think it had a designer – it would not always have been there. The watch is very complex – there must be an intelligent designer.

7. We look at the universe and see that it is, like the watch, very complex, the parts fits together and work together very well. There must have been a designer at work who made the universe – this designer is God.

8. A similar argument was offered by Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion who said that the world is nothing more than one great machine which is then subdivided into other little machines. But then went on to criticise the argument!

9. The world is not in a state of chaos; there are natural laws which govern it. These natural laws produce regularity and order in the world. It is this order that helps us make sense of the world. The world is not an intelligent thing so it must be the result of an intelligent creator/being. This is God.

10. “…everything in this world is made just so that we can mange to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it…” Here Hume backs up the argument from design (teleological argument). He seems to be suggesting that the world has been made in a very precise and intricate way and if it had been designed even with the slightest difference we could no longer or would never have lived in it. Therefore this intricacy imply a designer – the universe looks to be designed to be the way it is.

11. The structure of the Cosmos has lead to the development of intelligent creatures such as humans. The Goldie Locks factor – not too hot, not too cold its just right! All the features of the universe have to be just as they are for us to develop and thrive in the world the way we have. A slight difference either way, e.g. temp, pressure, atmosphere, life could not have developed. This surely cannot be chance and therefore there must be an intelligent designer.

12. Hume’s criticisms are found in ‘Concerning Natural Religion’. Hume argues that the analogy between the universe and human artefacts (watches, machines etc) is not a good one. He uses an example of a house to illustrate his point: When we come across a house we can infer that there was a designer because we have a great deal of experience of houses being designed, built and so on. However, we have no experience of universes being designed and built. There would be no problem if the universe was like a house, for then we could say that although we have experience of universes being designed the universe is like a house; so the analogy between houses and universe would stand and we could say that there was a designer of the universe – but the universe is nothing like a house!

13. The key problem in his objection is that the universe is unique there is nothing else like the universe that we know of. Hume’s point is that we cannot arrive at any conclusions about the origins of a unique object – he says we cannot say that universe came from some thought and art ; the universe is unique and there is nothing to liken to it therefore we cannot arrive at any conclusions about a unique object like the universe.

14. Hume also argues there may be a number of causes for the design of the universe not just an intelligent God. Hume argues that the universe bears more resemblance to animal bodies or vegetables than it does human artefacts – could the cause of the world not be something similar or analogous to generation of vegetation. Furthermore, perhaps the universe was spun out from the bowels of an infinite spider (Hume 1994). Hume really didn’t think these are the cases but his point is that we have as much evidence to suggest the spider is the creator as we do an intelligent God.

15. Another criticism Hume offered is dependant on his principle that when we infer any particular cause from an effect we must proportion one from the other, we can never be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect. For example: Suppose you are walking through a beautiful garden in which the flowers are all neatly arranged with the correct proportion of shade and light for the climate; it has fountains and is all colour co- ordinated. If you are told one man designed and created it all; I can reasonably infer something about him - extraordinary skill, fine sense of balance etc. But I could not infer that he was a kind and generous man, or he was skilled in poetry. So given the world as it is, what could infer about its designer? Nice? Generous? Infinite?

16. Swinburne was a modern advocate of the Design argument, however, he believed one of the arguments were stronger than the other. In his response in ‘The existence of God’ he believed that: Aquinas’ version was the stronger of the arguments as it referred to temporal order, by this he means the laws of nature. He postulated that nature is governed by natural laws and seems to conform to some formula. A scientific explanation cannot account for this regularity. It can only be accounted for by a personal intelligent being which is God. “So either the orderliness of nature is where all explanation stops, or, we must postulate an agent of great power and knowledge…the simplest such agent is… God.” (140-141)

17. Paley’s and Hume’s versions or critiques of the design argument are the weaker of the two teleological arguments. Swinburne argued that the design argument based on analogy is an argument based on spatial order, by this he means the complex structures of objects such as plants. He believes that the development of plants and the order of such complexities can be explained by science (theory of natural selection) and so does not require the introduction of a God. And is therefore the less convincing of the arguments.

18. Swinburne carefully replied to all of Hume’s criticisms: He believed that it is mistaken that we cannot arrive at conclusions about the universe because it is unique. In fact cosmologists are reaching well-tested conclusions about the universe as a whole and physical anthropologists are reaching such conclusions about the human race, there is only one human race making us unique. Things are not simply unique or not unique, things are unique or not under description, everything can be unique and under some description: For example – my computer is not unique (thousands like it) but it is unique as it is the only one on my desk!

19. Swinburne argues that Hume’s claim that the universe could be produced in the kind of way vegetables are produced could not explain the fact that there are laws of nature which operate temporally – which hold across time. A vegetable only grows, for example because the laws of biochemistry hold. Swinburne grants that the argument from design cannot give good grounds for saying that there is a designer who is totally good, omnipotent and omniscient. But he does say that the principle on which his third criticism rests is false. As it is not a principle observed in science.

20. Evolutionary theory can, arguably, account for the fact that we can manage to live in the world, without postulating the agency of a creator God in facilitating this. The argument appears to ignore design failure in the universe – this being evident in, for example, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. There are also instances of apparently purposeless design – such as the male nipple. Why is there only one designer? – the world is so intricate could this not suggest multiple designers? Why does the designer have to be the Christian concept of God? Can oppose the claim that the world was made ‘just so’ we can live in it (anthropic argument)

21. It is impossible to draw conclusions about the whole from the part (we cannot tell much about a tree from a single leaf); how then can we draw conclusions about God just by observing the world? The design argument projects human characteristics on to God (see, eg Paley’s argument). How can we say that God is like us, when any God which existed would have to be so unlike us? The argument leaves open the possibility of several Gods Some scientists have argued for a form of design argument, ‘Intelligent Design’ – which claimed to be as scientifically respectable as Darwinian theory. ID theory claims that there are natural systems which cannot be accounted for in terms of undirected natural forces, and which exhibit certain features which in any other context we would attribute to intelligence. We ought to reserve judgement wherever various explanations can be given for a particular phenomenon – and it is not clear that in any case the existence of a creator God is the best explanation for the appearance of design.