Back
to top
Paley's Watchmaker Criticisms? Watch
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Hello!
I am revising the Watchmaker Analogy by Paley, I don't remember any criticisms and critics names for it though, can you help please?
Thanks
PS. This is for Unit 1 Religious Studies with the Design Argument section
I am revising the Watchmaker Analogy by Paley, I don't remember any criticisms and critics names for it though, can you help please?
Thanks
PS. This is for Unit 1 Religious Studies with the Design Argument section
0
reply
Report
#2
Hi! i was under the impression that there was no need to evaluate Paley's watchmaker analogy. We just need to be able to evaluate the teleological argument as a whole.
0
reply
(Original post by JemmaMatthews)
Hi! i was under the impression that there was no need to evaluate Paley's watchmaker analogy. We just need to be able to evaluate the teleological argument as a whole.
Hi! i was under the impression that there was no need to evaluate Paley's watchmaker analogy. We just need to be able to evaluate the teleological argument as a whole.
I thought with the 9 mark question (after the 21 mark question) we normally have to evaluate what we said previouslySo what would you put as an evaluation for the teleological argument as a whole? Would you say what Hume said??
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by i_dont_know_what)
Ohhh! Thanks I thought with the 9 mark question (after the 21 mark question) we normally have to evaluate what we said previously
So what would you put as an evaluation for the teleological argument as a whole? Would you say what Hume said??
Ohhh! Thanks
I thought with the 9 mark question (after the 21 mark question) we normally have to evaluate what we said previouslySo what would you put as an evaluation for the teleological argument as a whole? Would you say what Hume said??
You could use the general evaluations of the teleological argument to evaluate then i suppose. Id use mainly Hume (Many builders and Absent designer), Kant (restricted experience) Mill (Suffering and cruelty) Darwin (random chance and Adaption) and Dawkins (nature of god). Let me know if you'd like me to go into detail with any of these
0
reply
(Original post by JemmaMatthews)
You could use the general evaluations of the teleological argument to evaluate then i suppose. Id use mainly Hume (Many builders and Absent designer), Kant (restricted experience) Mill (Suffering and cruelty) Darwin (random chance and Adaption) and Dawkins (nature of god). Let me know if you'd like me to go into detail with any of these
You could use the general evaluations of the teleological argument to evaluate then i suppose. Id use mainly Hume (Many builders and Absent designer), Kant (restricted experience) Mill (Suffering and cruelty) Darwin (random chance and Adaption) and Dawkins (nature of god). Let me know if you'd like me to go into detail with any of these
can you go into detail with Kant please? I have never really understood that one
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by i_dont_know_what)
Thanks can you go into detail with Kant please? I have never really understood that one
Thanks
can you go into detail with Kant please? I have never really understood that one
Basically, he just means that as humans we only know and are able to make conclusions about the world that is directly around us (things we can experience through our senses i.e things we can actually see). So, we can't make statements or come to any conclusions about what is beyond our senses (things we cant see i.e 'a designer' 'God') because we can't be 100% certain that what we are suggesting is accurate. Therefore, any statements that we make like ''the universe has a design'' for example can not be valid because we have no proof.
0
reply
(Original post by JemmaMatthews)
Basically, he just means that as humans we only know and are able to make conclusions about the world that is directly around us (things we can experience through our senses i.e things we can actually see). So, we can't make statements or come to any conclusions about what is beyond our senses (things we cant see i.e 'a designer' 'God') because we can't be 100% certain that what we are suggesting is accurate. Therefore, any statements that we make like ''the universe has a design'' for example can not be valid because we have no proof.
Basically, he just means that as humans we only know and are able to make conclusions about the world that is directly around us (things we can experience through our senses i.e things we can actually see). So, we can't make statements or come to any conclusions about what is beyond our senses (things we cant see i.e 'a designer' 'God') because we can't be 100% certain that what we are suggesting is accurate. Therefore, any statements that we make like ''the universe has a design'' for example can not be valid because we have no proof.
0
reply
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
