God existence philosophy

In regards to God existence philosophy, I find the cosmological argument from Design to be more persuasive because it is much simpler and at the same time, more appealing to the mind. The Ontological argument, on the other hand, involves starting from a concept of God, and hence, it demands that one be willing to assume the existence of God before he starts the argument. On the other hand, the cosmological argument starts from a simple fact about the world that involves the tracing of causes of existence. Cosmological arguments are easier to understand for the simpler and the more critical minds.

The argument starts by assuming two situations. In the first situation, the man encounters a stone. In the second situation, instead of a stone, the person finds a watch. When finding a stone, the man does not think whether it was made by someone, whether it was designed in a special way that makes it intended to serve some purpose. Nor does the man think whether the stone is there in this specific place at this specific time is intended for a reason (Paley, p.30).

When encountering the watch, however, the situation is completely different. The person knows very well that someone has created this watch, that someone has designed it in the way that it came to be, and that regardless whether it was in this place for an intended reason or by mistake, the original purpose of making this watch is known and familiar. The question is, what difference is there between the watch and the stone that makes us contemplate the creation of the watch but not that of the stone? The reason is that we know already that watches are made by human beings, but at the same time, we do not know who creates stones, and certainly, to our knowledge it is not a human being.

But although we already know that watches are made by human beings, we do not exactly know how a watch is made. If we open the watch and look at its heart, we will see nothing but coils, pieces of metal and various other objects whose presence is almost illogical or meaningless to us, mainly because we do not know anything about watches. Surely, some people may know since they may be familiar with the making of watches, but how many people could there be who really know? One in a million? More or less. The point is that even though we do not know who designed and made the watch, how he came to do it, or what means he had implied to accomplish his job, we know for sure that it was designed by someone. Why then should we not apply the same logic to the stone? There are several reasons to ask this question.

First of all, we are as ignorant about the way in which the parts of the watch work as we are with respect to the way in which the parts of the stone work. We are familiar with the watch, and for this reason we know that it was designed and created by someone, but then, what if we are not familiar with watches? In this case, we may treat the watch in the same manner as we treated the stone, that is, we are not going to contemplate that it was designed by someone in a certain way for some purpose.

The focal point of the argument here is clear. A stone and a watch are both objects, and they must be both designed and created by someone. We know that watches are designed and made by someone, and although we may not know anything about this person or the mechanisms that he used to design and create the watch, we still attribute the existence of the watch to the design and the process used by this person (creator). But what prevents us from applying the same logic to the stone? Does the fact that we do not know who or how it was designed imply that it was not designed and created? This is not true because in the case of the watch we also had similar limitation on knowledge. Evidently, then, if we are going to apply our logic in a consistent manner, we can only reach the conclusion that the stone and the watch, and every other object are designed by someone, and whether we know this designer or the process that he used to bring the object to existence or not, this does not deny the fact that such a designer exists.

Even if a watch goes irregular or malfunctioning, this does not deny the existence of a design. The irregularity or malfunctioning of the watch does not rule out the fact that it was designed for a purpose, even if this purpose was not achieved in the end. Most importantly, it does not deny the existence of a designer in the first place (Paley, p.34). The same argument can be applied to the objects of nature whose purpose we may not know or understand, or whose purpose we may perceive to be faulty.

A person will be surprised to find out that despite its complication and the substantial degree of contriving involved in the designing and making of a watch, in reality, the watch functions and operates according to the metallic law of nature, which is in turn nothing but one of the laws of nature. Thus, regardless how much proof contrivance there exists in the designing and making of a watch, the fact is that it necessarily in accordance with the laws of nature. However, for a law to exist, it essentially demands a designer or a contriver who designed this law and who made things operate and apply in accordance with it (Paley, p.33).

If we then assume that the watch is capable of making another watch, and another and another, what does this imply? It might imply that a watch is creating a watch, but it definitely does not deny that there exists a designer who has formulated the entire system from the very beginning, thus enabling one object to reproduce another. Even though a new object is coming out of the old object and similar to it in design, intent, content and utility, it is still not designing it, because the design is inherent in the first object. If we try to trace back the original design, we shall move backwards from one object to the other, but we shall not get anywhere, because even if we reach the first original watch that gave birth to all other watches, then we shall definitely be stuck with the eternal question: who designed this system? Who created this process? Who set the laws that govern this entire situation?

This argument is applicable in the same sense to human beings. We have children born to human beings and even if we succeed in tracing human beings backwards until we reach the first man on earth, we will still have to deal with the question: who designed him? Who created him? Who set up his nature and processes?

The Argument from Design, therefore, is based on two fundamentals. First of all, there exists a designer and a maker for every object. And secondly, all creations and designs are governed by laws, and these laws are set up to serve a variety of purposes and thus, they definitely have someone who stands behind their setup and creation. The argument inevitably leads to the ultimate designer, the one who set up the entire system of the world, who put things to work through a complicated process that in turn serves a variety of purposes. This ultimate contriver, designer, or creator is the one who we may not know, the one whose processes and methods we may not be familiar with, and the one who sets up things to operate as they do around us.

The argument finally holds that this ultimate designer cannot be but God who sets up the rules of nature and makes them operate the way they do, even beyond our recognition and understanding. Our failure to understand is methods or ways, his intentions or processes does not deny his existence.

Many reasons make this argument easier to understand and even more persuasive. To start with, it is based on logical assumptions from beginning to end. Unlike the ontological arguments, it does not start with the assumption that there exists the concept of God already. Rather, it starts from simpler notions and examples, and with the use of induction, it eventually leads to the ultimate fact that God exists and that He is responsible for the design, creation and operation of the universe.

Cosmological arguments

Cosmological arguments of this type can be very effective, specifically that they do not assume that the other side is a religious or irreligious. Rather, it assumes that he is a common person who uses and applies logic and common sense. Furthermore, this argument does not demand that the person assume things that he may not agree with in real life. Rather, it implies the usage of examples that exist around us in everyday life, and at the same time, applies logical links and connections that are familiar to every person.

Yet, although cosmological arguments like this one are quite persuasive, simple and effective, they may be argued against on the basis that they are too simplistic. It is true that many people do not know for example how the system and design of a watch are made. But if we seek to know how watches or other man-made objects are made, then we can find out, regardless how much pain that might involve. And we apply the same process to an object such as the stone, we will find out that the stone is created according to a certain system that we are able to identify today, that it is made up of particles and matter that are governed by the rules of chemistry. The point is that we will inevitably reach the laws of nature. Even the nuclear bomb operates according to chemical laws of nature that have been mastered by man to a certain degree. But then, it is not man who created these laws; rather, he only used them to achieve his purpose. This brings us to the beginning of the argument: who designed the chemical, physical or biological laws of nature? Who devised these systems? Who set them up and made them operate the way they do? Apparently, the argument begins to make sense once again, refuting counter arguments of modernity and science, because for a person who does not believe in God, the answer is “I don’t know” but for one who is willing to accept the fact that nature itself is designed and managed by a creator, the answer is: God.

References

Paley, William. “The Argument from Design.” In Joel Feinberg & Russ

Shafer-Landau, eds. Reason & Responsibility. Tenth Edition. New

York: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999.

References

Paley, William. “The Argument from Design.” In Joel Feinberg & Russ

Shafer-Landau, eds. Reason & Responsibility. Tenth Edition. New

York: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999.