When considering the idea of ​​a divine creator, one might consider arguments made by analogy, as William Paley does in his work Natural Theology, as guidance of the existence of such a creator. Paley constructs an argument by analogy by relating the universe to a complex mechanical watch; Because the complexity and order of a watch implies intelligent design, the complexity and order of nature also implies the existence of an immensely powerful creator who "understands its construction and designs its use" (Paley) . However, Paley's conclusion that a perfect, all-powerful, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator is responsible for the natural world is undermined both by natural imperfections involving an imperfect creator and by purely natural premises leading him to a supernatural conclusion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayPaley argues that just as the complexity and apparent purpose of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, the complexity of the natural world implies the existence of an intelligent being. designer. If the perfect creator Paley refers to was responsible for the universe, then his creations would have to be perfect too. The natural world is imperfect, however, and organisms evolve over time to correct the imperfections of their past. Although natural processes such as evolution and adaptation do not explain the origins of nature nor disprove the existence of a creator who provides the origin of life on which the theory of evolution is based , they serve to illustrate the imperfections of nature and thus refute Paley's idea of ​​a perfect, perfect world. acting creator. Consider the traits that different groups of the same species develop in their unique environments. As Darwin discovered in his studies, various bird species evolved physical and behavioral traits on the Galapagos Islands in response to their environment that differed from those of birds of the same genus in other parts of the world; the birds had adapted to their environment over several generations to achieve higher survival rates (pbs.org). These adaptations were necessary for the birds to survive in the Galapagos where their main food source was exploited by various other species. The complex and advantageous physical and behavioral traits that birds and other organisms develop were not intelligently designed, as Paley suggests, but rather the product of natural processes through trial and error of pre-existing traits. If Paley's creator were perfect, omniscient, and all good, it follows that he would know which traits would be most useful to his creations and would thus provide them with those traits for their own benefit, thus making evolution and other natural processes. . Yet these processes are necessary to increase the survivability of species, highlighting their biological imperfections and refuting Paley's conclusion that a perfect, omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, because imperfect creations imply an imperfect creator ( Archie). The existence of evil in the world raises similar objections to the idea of ​​a perfect, perfectly moral creator. Furthermore, Paley's argument is rooted in the similarities he observes between a manufactured machine and the natural world. Because Paley is faced with a handcrafted mechanical watch that nature clearly could not produce on its own, then a watchmaker must exist. And as the analogy goes, just as a manufactured watch is complex and orderly, the complexity andThe order of the natural world also requires a creator, according to Paley. However, Paley's analogy concerns observable complexity and order in nature, but presupposes an unnatural omnipotent creator: "The uncontroversial nature of such deductions has often been appropriated as the basis for analogous arguments concerning (things in ) nature. But in cases involving design in (or from) natural deductions themselves are more problematic, since the intelligence in question would probably not be natural” (Ratzsch, Stanford University). The complexity and order of the natural world are just that: observable properties of nature. The premises on which Paley bases his conclusion are rooted in nature, but his conclusion is the existence of a supernatural entity – the perfect and omnipotent creator. Although Paley is correct that nature is incalculably complex and orderly, this does not mean that the origin of its complexity or order is the product of supernatural action given that its premises are entirely natural. It could be argued that natural processes, such as evolution and adaptation, do not refute Paley's conclusion because they do not explain the origin of life. In an article written for Time Magazine, author Amir Aczel asks, "Why is our universe so precisely designed for the emergence of life?" This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe it will never find a scientific solution. » Although scientific laws and theories help explain parts of the natural world, they rely on the pre-existing complexity and order of nature. Evolution is not an explanation of life; it is a function of life and rests entirely on its origin. other natural processes such as adaptive radiation or natural selection explain the origin of the natural world and so, one might argue, their existence does not adequately contradict Paley or other teleological arguments. Likewise, some Paley supporters argue that the imperfections of natural organisms do not. Considering the "philosophical problem of evil," Alvin Plantinga, John A. O'Brien Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, asserts in his book The Nature of Necessity that Paley's creator created free creatures. will, whose moral imperfections are of their own cause. “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good actions than bad) is more valuable, all other things being equal, than a world containing no free creatures. God can create free creatures, but he cannot cause or determine them to do only what is right,” Plantinga writes, “for if he does, then they are not really free after all; they do not freely do what is right. To create creatures capable of moral good, he must therefore create creatures capable of moral evil... The fact that free creatures sometimes err, however, counts neither against the omnipotence of God nor against his goodness..." (166 -167). By focusing on the moral imperfections of creatures, Plantinga argues that the existence of such imperfections does not refute the existence of a perfect and omnipotent creator. His argument follows that the creator had sufficient moral reasons to give free will to creatures, but cannot force creatures to act in a purely moral manner, alluding to the fact that some imperfections in the world are caused by the creatures themselves. themselves, whatever the perfection of the creator. that Paley's supernatural conclusion can be adequately supported by strictly natural premises. Consider what some philosophers.).