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