William Paley: The Watch & the Watchmaker

According to Paley, were must conclude that a watch had an intelligent designer if the watch

shows purposefulness

According to Paley, every indication of contrivance (especially a mechanical device or piece of equipment made with skill & cleverness) & design that exists in the watch exists in

the works of nature

Paley admits that his argument could support the idea of self-supporting nature in need of no supernatural creature.

False

Paley proves the existence of a God w/ restricted features.

False

Paley proves the existence of the God of traditional theism.

False

Paley says that a machine must be perfect to provide evidence that it had a designer.

False

Paley thinks that the fact that a creation has defects shows that the creator must also have defects.

False

Paley's argument, if cogent (very clear & easy for the mind to accept & believe), proves the existence of the Christian God.

False

Paley's argument, if cogent, proves that the designer of the world has infinite wisdom.

False

Paley's argument, if cogent, proves that the designer of the world was a single being.

False

For Paley, the key difference b/w the "contrivance" of a watch & that of nature is that the latter is

greater & grander

Paley says that if we found a watch & examined it closely, we would naturally infer that it had a maker-even if we had never seen a watch made.

True

Paley says that for us to conclude that a machine was the result of design or a designer, it is not necessary that the machine be

all of the above