Notable statements of the argument from design: Difference between revisions

From Religions Wiki
(fix outdated link)
(reference format)
Line 11: Line 11:


==Ray Comfort's divine painter==
==Ray Comfort's divine painter==
This version of the argument is commonly presented by apologist [[Ray Comfort]] or his many followers:<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120627013448/http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/07/potential-law-suit.html</ref>
This version of the argument is commonly presented by apologist [[Ray Comfort]] or his many followers:<ref>Ray Comfort, Words of Comfort blog, July 23, 2008 [https://web.archive.org/web/20120627013448/http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/07/potential-law-suit.html]</ref>
{{Quote|First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.}}
{{Quote|First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.}}



Revision as of 19:47, 21 March 2014

Various philosophers and apologists have stated the argument from design in their own particular style. There have also been many interesting criticisms of the argument.

Paley's watchmaker

This is the watchmaker argument, one of the earliest formal expressions of the argument from design.

William Paley in Natural Theology c.1802:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there."

William Paley in Natural Theology (Ch. XXIII, Pg. 441):

"Upon the whole; after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.]"

Ray Comfort's divine painter

This version of the argument is commonly presented by apologist Ray Comfort or his many followers:[1]

"First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."
"Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as [sic] a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."
"Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that."

References

  1. Ray Comfort, Words of Comfort blog, July 23, 2008 [1]