PHIL 101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Theism, Polytheism
Philo’s (Hume’s) objections in Dialogues 2, 5 & 8
The Objection in Dialogue 2
● We lack adequate experience of designers designing worlds
The Objection in Dialogue 5
● Even granting design, we can’t infer unity, goodness, or infinity
The Objection in Dialogue 8
● Given infinite time atoms in random motion could and would conjoin in every possible
way (including the way they are today)
1. Design Arg. from analogy
2. Design Arg. without analogy (“direct”)
3. Inference to best explanation design arg.
● In order for an analogous argument to be effective, one has to know from experience
that there is strong relation between the two things you are comparing.
● You must understand how machines come into being, and you must understand how the
way world are formed - which is impossible
● If you don’t know how something is created, how can you compare it?
● The eye has a intricate, purposeful, structure
● Can we infer from that that God exists?
● If you mean that one good, infinite, unified being exists by the word God, then no, you
cannot conclude God exists
● It’s possible that there was more than one designer
● Logically, monotheism and polytheism are equally possible
● You cannot infer infinity, goodness, or unity in the designer
● Some combinations of atoms will have greater capacity to maintain their form than
others
● How can animals and plants have the arrangements they do without having been
expressly designed that way
● At some point the atoms will take on an appearance of design
● Darwin filled in the gaps in the story and made it more plausible
● Should or should not, need or need not the theory of evolution be used to describe
natural progression (not theism)
Paley’s Design Argument
● Paley on the unity of the designer - the universe is a system that has parts depending on
the whole
● Because the universe is made by one plan, there must be unity of counsel
● Paley on the goodness of the designer - why would food taste good if the designer didn’t
have our happiness in mind - not logically sound argument, perhaps it makes it easier to
survive if we like the taste
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Philo"s (hume"s) objections in dialogues 2, 5 & 8. We lack adequate experience of designers designing worlds. Even granting design, we can"t infer unity, goodness, or infinity. Given infinite time atoms in random motion could and would conjoin in every possible way (including the way they are today: design arg. from analogy, design arg. without analogy ( direct , inference to best explanation design arg. In order for an analogous argument to be effective, one has to know from experience that there is strong relation between the two things you are comparing. You must understand how machines come into being, and you must understand how the way world are formed - which is impossible. The eye has a intricate, purposeful, structure. If you mean that one good, infinite, unified being exists by the word god, then no, you cannot conclude god exists. It"s possible that there was more than one designer. Logically, monotheism and polytheism are equally possible.
