Paste your essay in here…God
The Judeo-Christian culture believes that one must have a personal relationship with God to find their place in the world and truly be happy. However, the question, “Does God Exist?” has created an ongoing debate and divide throughout this culture for over many centuries. Many scholars have taken into consideration the fact that God may not exist, or may only exist as far as the human mind can imagine. Despite this, many arguments have been created by some of the most important philosophers as to how and why the existence of God must be. The main goal of this paper is to evaluate and determine if they suffice to explain the creation of the universe and succeed in proving God’s existence. In what follows, I will begin by explicating, comparing and contrasting one version of the cosmological argument-specifically that from Aquinas-and one version of the teleological argument by William Paley. I will then examine objections raised to Aquinas’s argument by Isaac Newton: the laws of motion and how Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity can eliminate Aquinas’s argument from the debate on God’s existence. Following this, I will examine objections presented to Paley’s arguments by Hume and Charles Darwin: the theory of evolution. On the former, I will argue that Newton’s objection is insufficient since Aquinas could say his argument is intended to apply to only the acceleration of objects, but, I will also add that Aquinas’s argument is inadequate due to a seeming self-contradiction. On the latter, I will argue, with Hume, that Paley’s argument is weak since it is an argument based by analogy, and with Darwin, that evolution is the cause of the complicated process of nature, not a divine watchmaker. Thus, I will conclude that Aquinas’s cosmological argument and Paley’s teleological argument are critically flawed; therefore, they should not be used in the discussion for God’s existence.
Aquinas’s version of the cosmological argument, known as the Argument of Motion, states that if, “something is moving, it must have been moved by something else” (Velasquez 230). The “something” here represents the universe and the thing that first moved it is what Aquinas calls the “First Mover” or God. William Paley’s version of the teleological argument, known as The Divine Watchmaker, suggests that as the order and purpose of the design of a watch demands an intelligent watchmaker, the same which allows for a properly functioning human being and everything surrounding it demands an intelligent creator. As Paley states, “Were there no example in the world of contrivance, except that of the eye, it would be alone sufficient to the support of the conclusion which we draw from it, as to the necessity of an intelligent Creator…” (Velasquez 235).
In comparison, both Aquinas’s and Paley’s arguments involve causation and dependency on and of what humans know to exist, and both arguments accept that God is the first cause or creator of all. Both can also be considered teleological arguments considering that they discuss the goals and design of the universe. Aquinas’s argument, however, claims that proof of contrivance within the universe is evidence that the universe and all inside was constructed by an intelligent creator. In contrast, Paley’s argument only preserves an analogy to claim that as intelligent humans must construct complicated, functioning machines, an intelligent being must have constructed the complicated processes of nature.
I feel Aquinas’s argument cannot be used to prove the existence of God, or even to explain what a hypothetical God is, because it only contradicts itself. Aquinas’s second premise, which states that, “if that which moves the things around us is itself moving, then it too must have been moved by something else” (Velasquez 230), counteracts the entire argument, because if God created all that is within the universe as well as the universe itself, he should be considered a mover; thus, he should be seen as something that can be moved. If God could be moved, then this could not be viewed as God or the First Mover as it is only what has already been moved. As a result, Aquinas’s argument seems tremendously circular, and is based off an illogical fallacy.
One of the major counter-arguments to Aquinas’s argument, Isaac Newton’s first law of motion, states that “every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force” (grc.nasa.gov). This suggests that unless an object is contacted by force, it stays at rest, and supports the idea that it is more logical to suppose that the universe has always existed than to conclude that it was created from nothing. However, Aquinas’s argument seems to only speak for the ongoing acceleration of objects, not objects that are at rest. For example, in his first premise, Aquinas states, “It is evident that some things in the world around us are moving” (Velasquez 230). This is true, and in this case, Newton’s objection cannot be applied to Aquinas’s argument and is insufficient. However, if Aquinas’s argument is intended for that which is already in acceleration it must also mean that it speaks for the First Mover as if it was already accelerated; thus, the First Mover must have been accelerated by another force, and as a result cannot be considered the First Mover.
Another major counter-argument to Aquinas’ argument of motion is Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which suggests that motion is the sum of two things, the mover and the moved, thus, there can be no “Unmoved mover” (Velasquez 230). The first premise of Aquinas’s argument is based on the idea of an object acting in motion relative to a definite, unmovable source. If Einstein’s theory is correct, the logic of Aquinas’s first premise is false. This supports my thesis as Aquinas’s argument is based on an invalid initial claim and should not be used in the discussion for God existence.
One may argue that Aquinas’s argument succeeds in proving the existence of God because it explains the beginning of not only man, but the universe as well since there has to be a beginning force interacted on something for it to be in movement. This person may add an example in support of his argument, stating, humans are the first movers whose ever-expanding minds allowed for the creation of what we know and need today to survive. The argument may also be supported by the fact that humans and animals had to be born by something else, in this case, what gave birth to the first humans and first animals? However, I would argue that one cannot solely assume that man or the universe was created or moved from nothing, one could conclude that the universe and the energy within always existed. The law of conservation of energy supports this, stating, “In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved” (nyu.edu). This law suggests that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the forms that energy takes, however, is constantly changing due to outside interferences (Moskowitz, “Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed”). Thus, Aquinas’s argument is still critically flawed and should not be used in the discussion for God’s existence.
I feel William Paley’s version of the teleological argument is flawed simply because it is an argument in which the premises are not based on proof, but on analogy. Similar to Aquinas’s argument, it is immensely self-refuting and there are many important things that are overlooked. Paley’s argument also does not show who the Watchmaker is, nor does it explain what the Watchmaker used to create the universe, or in this case, “watch.” Were the parts always in existence or did the Watchmaker create them from nothing? If the Watchmaker created these parts from nothing, as the theists claimed, Paley’s analogy is false.
We have laid our eyes on a watchmaker and know that a watchmaker indeed exists, for if one did not, there would be no watches, however, we have not laid our eyes on the watchmaker of humanity, so how can we know that one exists? This is the basis for David Hume’s counter-argument, which states, “But we have never seen eyes being designed and made, so we cannot say that we know they were produced in precisely the same way that watches were produced” (Velasquez 236). This suggests that we have no right to say that there is such a thing as an intelligent creator, and it may be more logical to assume that, overtime, the processes of the universe occurred in the same way that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, evolution.
The theory of evolution that Charles Darwin proposed fits nicely with Hume’s concept that no complicated function of the universe can be said to have been created by an intelligent being. His theory suggests that “organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits,” (Than, “What Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?”). This theory diffuses any successes in Paley’s argument because with it, we can logically assume that there is no such thing as the concept of an intelligent being which could create the bodily functions of humans and nature, there is only the concept of natural selection. This idea states that, “those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive” (McClean, “Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection”), thus, the humans that have the best functioning characteristics required for life in their environment live on, and these traits are passed down to future generations. Darwin’s law is a perfect rebuttal to Paley’s example which describes the complicated functions of the human eye. Using Darwin’s idea of natural selection, scientists have concluded that the evolution of the eye is what has created the complicated functions of it. For example, a mutation that has improved the vision of an organism’s eyesight has given it a distinct advantage in survival over others in its species, therefore, its offspring will continue to survive so long as the trait maintains (creation.com). Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection shows that Paley’s argument cannot be viewed as valid. Therefore, it cannot prove the existence of God and should not be used in such discussions.
One may argue that Paley’s argument succeeds in that it correctly describes why the universe needs an intelligent creator to exist, to not only keeps things functioning, but also to create changes in these functioning things. There must be something that has created the earliest functions of the universe, for if this were not true, from what could such a thing have evolved in the first place? If the law of conservation of energy is correct, then one may suppose the intelligent creator has always had the tools it needed to form the universe. However, in the same way this argument would succeed it would also fail. For example, Paley’s argument does not explain how an intelligent creator keeps things functioning, only that it creates what we know to be functioning. In this case, the law of conservation of energy refutes this, as energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and since the universe is made up of energy, it was never created. Thus, this argument is insufficient in proving that Paley was correct, and adds to my claim that Paley’s argument is logically false and should be not be used in the discussion for God’s existence.
I will not deny that both Aquinas’s and Paley’s arguments make some contribution to the questions of the existence of a divine being. Aquinas’s Argument of Motion provides the idea that for every movement in the universe there must be something that moves it, however, this state of thought only seems to create more questions than answer one. If Aquinas was to be considered correct, his argument would only create a loop of the same question, such as, who is the First Mover’s mover if one existed? Paley’s, Divine Watchmaker, argument provides the concept that there must be one to blame for the creation of the complicated gears of nature and humanity, just as a watchmaker must create the complicated gears of a watch. Of course, this can’t be possibly be contemplated either, considering that watchmakers have fathers and mothers who gave birth to them and they are trained by others to make watches. Who is the Divine Watchmaker’s father or mother? Who trained him? For something to have trained or have given birth to the Divine Watchmaker, must mean that that being is more powerful than the Watchmaker, in this case, what was previously thought to be the Divine Watchmaker cannot be viewed as such. But then, who trained the true Watchmaker or gave birth to it? It is with these questions that one could see why Aquinas’s and Paley’s arguments do not accomplish what they were formed to do.
In conclusion, I have argued that Aquinas’s version of the cosmological argument and Paley’s version of the teleological argument are critically flawed and in no way can prove an intelligent creator or a first mover’s existence; therefore, they should not be used in the discussion for the existence of God.