Philosophy †Religion Essay

develop and illustrate two criticisms of the claims that the universe shows formulaMany philosophers chip in suggested that world shows design to the extent that at that place back end be no other conclusion other than there is a beau ideal who created it. This argument has come to be live onn as the teleological argument (from the Greek telos meaning mapping). The argument is an inductive unmatched, a posterior (knowledge gained from experience) and is put forward to prove the reality of God. Design fanny refer to qua regularity and qua conclude. The former focuses on order and regularity in the world and the latter focuses on purpose and beauty but does this pee-pee up to scrutiny?One criticisms was put forward by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion vocalizes that there is no evidence for order in the world. In fact the evidence given seems to suggest an injustice fountain the arbitrary destruction in the world that affects everyone included innocents s eems to suggest that there is no design or order in the world. Tsunamis, hurri stackes and earthquakes back tooth all in all be cited in Humes attack.This is made regular(a) more manifest from the fact that modern physics isnt as ordered as the predominant supporter of the design argument, William Paley. Paley gave display cases such as the planets and seasons and even gives documentation from science saying that Newtons laws govern the very clay of nature. and this has been proved to be wrong by Princeton University and their study called The loft, the study in itself shows that Newtons laws argon non-deterministic meaning that a ball outhouse drop from any top (as did in the experiment) without a cause. This shows that even science isnt ordered as Paley made out.Another criticism is which is to a fault put forward by Hume is that Paleys argument (that there is, indeed, design in the world) is that this is a disanalogy. Paley gave the example of watch stating that it had purpose (it could tell us the time), regularity (evident by second, second and minute hand) and design (the mechanisms) and he claims that this is analogous to the world. However this is a reach disanalogy according to Hume for we have experience of watches and we know that they have designers and thus know that they must be designed, we end not however say the like for the universe, as we only have one and we be contained within it.If we were transcendental and had access to more than one universe or even if we had witnessed them organism designed we may have been able to accept Paleys claims. Hume also says that its not analogous because a watchs purpose is axiomatic but this is unlike the universe where it is subjective. For a Christian, the purpose of liveliness is to create a relationship with God so that they can be eschatologically reunited and the universe allows this (its purpose) however a humanist would say that the universe has no purpose and that we are here to live our lives to the full. hence Paleys claims are left unneeded.To conclude, these two criticisms have shown that there is headway as to whether there is design in the world. Hume has shown that design qua (in relation to) purpose and regularity are merely positions which are nothing more than falsities.Explain and illustrate two claims that Gods population is incompatible with the existence of sinfulnessEvil has come to pose one of the single largest threats to theism, indeed, some such as John Stuart Mill and David Hume concluded that God no longer existed because of the existence and the incompatibility of it. Evil has been defined to be the absence seizure of good by Aristotle but it mainly refers to two types, any indwelling evil which entails natural disasters such as tsunamis or moral which refers to morally wrong actions and intents taken by humans such as infanticide or examples such as the Holocaust. Some try to reconcile the ideas of evil and God (in what has c ome to be known as theocies) but it is questionable whether they have succeeded.Hume puts the first criticism forward which is known as the logical caper of evil, a deductive argument, by first reissuing the statements as a theistical would accept them1. God is omnipotent. Omniscient and omnibenevolent2. Evil (and thus suffering exist)Hume claims that the one and two are incompatible. For if he loved us then he would stop suffering and thus he can not be omnibenevolent. Hume developed his argument through his inconsistent triad which states that God is either unable to stop evil which means they he is not omnipotent that he does not know about the evil which means he is not omniscient. This leads us to the conclusion that Gods existence is logically incompatible with the existence of evil and Hume to say that one of the sides of triangle (attributes of God, considering that evil objectively exists) and so Hume says that it is the death of classical theism.The answer to this could be that evil exists so that we can allow us to spiritually grow, for it is true that we can not become courageous unless an instance of danger arises, similarly we can not gain compassion without suffering. So the criticism is solved through God wanting us to experience suffering so we can go though a process of soul-making (this marks the basis for Iraneus theodicy).However this leads to the second criticism which is predominantly put forward by William Row, Charles Darwin and David Hume says that even if we were to accept that evil should exist and it is compatible, the sheer tot and the distribution of it shows that the existence of God and evil is less probable.This inductive argument cites points in floor that show that the distribution doesnt seem to amount justification for soul-making it can accept the death of an adult, but what of the Gulag and Holocaust? Rowe also notes that there are evils which do not lead to spiritual growth such as people who never recover such as child who has had his integral family burned. Rowe also gives the example of a fawn who burns in a forest but no one is around to see it, who is maturation spiritually, what compassion has been encompassed? This anthropocentric approach (by implication) also fails because it leaves animal suffering unanswered.Thus, the suck that evil and Gods existence is compatible is made redundant not only in the face of the incompatibility of Gods very nature and the existence of evil but the sheer amount and distribution of it.