Comment on the View That the Strengths of These Ideas Make This a Convincing Argument. (9)

Essay
In this essay I am going to be looking at the argument for and against the teleological argument and how it proves the existence of god. I shall be discussing Plato, Aquinas, Paley and Tennant’s views for the existence of god and Hume, Darwin and Dawkins’ for challenges against God.
Plato is the first scholar known to have tried to prove the existence Of God. He claims the body is so complex and intricate that there must be a designer, there is no way at all random particles could have linked up to create humans purely by chance. He claims the designer must have great power and great skill.
The next scholar to have tried to prove God’s existence was St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued using his fifth way this was by using the concept of order. The world has order and Aquinas said that because the world had order there must be reason and purpose. Why would things work in an order unless they needed to for a specific reason? Aquinas then decided that due to our knowledge of order and purpose we must have a God who made the orders.
William Paley was the next known scholar who developed an analogy of a pocket watch. His analogy was if you came across a watch in a field you would question its designer and purpose as it is so detailed and got so many parts that make it work; whereas if you were to see a stone/rock in a field you wouldn’t question its design or purpose. Even though the stone/rock is just as detailed if not more. Paley also had an argument that was about regularity and purpose. He   claimed many things happen on a regular bases for example Paley sais all the planets rotate the same all the time, therefore somebody must have designed it to do that and that must be God. For purpose Paley used the idea that fins of a fish have a purpose to help it breath whilst being under water. For such things to have a purpose they must have a purpose they must be made in a specific way so they work to do their job correctly. To sum up his arguments he used the analogy...