The cosmological argument is basically an argument about causation.

Part IX Demea argues that since arguments are inconclusive, the only way to go is an declaration of faith. Cleanthes points out that the usefulness of anapproach doesn't make it valid, then, to anticipate Philo's arguments, attemptsto show that one cannot demonstrate the existence of God .

William Paley put forward perhaps the most famous version of this with the watchmaker argument.

Rene Descartes’s theory that one is unable distinguish being awake from dreaming, as interesting as it is, can be at times a little farfetched, along with a few contradictions to himself, Descartes’s dream argument does not entitle himself to any sort of claim....

Therefore I am defending the existence of God.

We can summarize the analogical version of the design argument as follows:

Hume also asks, “While we’re in the business of arguing by analogy, what is to keep us from pursuing the analogy all the way to a full-blown anthropomorphism?” The theist wants to argue that, since every highly ordered, complex contrivance we encounter has an intelligent designer behind it, we can conclude that the world also has a designer behind it. Well, says Hume, every artifact we encounter also has a designer with toenails, a bellybutton, 46 chromosomes, teeth made out of calcium composites, a spleen, and bad breath in the morning. What’s stopping us from concluding that the creator of the universe has all of these features as well? Hume’s point is that the analogy upon which the traditional design argument is based supports other conclusions than the one the theist is seeking to support.

Free design argument Essays and Papers - …

Both going against the design argument, the design argument is the argument for the existence of God or single creator; however, with Hume’s empiricist and Marx's atheist they both attack the design argument in different ways, ultimately coming to the same conclusion and that is there is no God....

Free design argument papers, essays, and research papers.

When dealing with non-deductive inferences, such as inferences to the best explanation, we must ask ourselves how much likelihood or palusibility is conferred upon the conclusion by the premises. If the IBE design argument is strong, then the facts about fine-tuning make the conclusion about an Intelligent Designer highly probable. If the argument is weak, then these facts do not make the Intelligent Design conclusion very probable at all. The key point is that, when dealing with non-deductive arguments, the issue is always one of rather than . Strong, inductive arguments purport to make their conclusions probable. They do not claim to necessitate their conclusions. So, pointing out that they do not necessitate their premises cannot count as an objection against them. The IBE design argument is an inference to the explanation; not an inference to the explanation.

Hume’s Argument from Design - Essay

The IBE version merely claims that the hypothesis of intelligent design provides the best explanation for those features. In other words, the design argument does not purport to be a deductive argument, in which the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion. Instead, it claims to offer a strong non-deductive argument for the hypothesis of intelligent design. Pointing out that the premises of a non-deductive argument do not necessitate its conclusion is like pointing out that Einstein’s general theory of relativity does not explain how to make a great Cabernet. That was never its intended purpose.

The Existence of God: Argument from Design

It has been generally agreed (then and since) that Darwin’s doctrine of natural selection effectively demolished William Paley’s classical design argument for the existence of God. By showing how blind and gradual adaptation could counterfeit the apparently purposeful design that Paley... and others had seen in the contrivances of nature, Darwin deprived their argument of the analogical inference that the evident purpose to be seen in the contrivances by which means and ends were related in nature was necessarily a function of mind.