see the attached
Katelyn
Evaluate Paley's Teleological Argument. Do you think it offers a better version of the Teleological Argument than the Argument by Analogy as presented by David Hume? Do you think Paley's version withstands Hume's objections?
The central component of Paley's Argument as it differs from Hume's Argument by Analogy is the inclusion of a "reliable indicator" in recognizing intelligent design. As referenced in lecture, this process of identification necessitates consideration of a deity of human approximation, when approaching the question of the existence of God.
The engagement of the Formal Structure of comparison and probability cites observation as the source of a claim to determining probability. As the Teleological Argument uses the inductive form of reasoning, the inquiry results in an expressed likelihood of inference to the best explanation for a phenomena (Prof. Devlin, lecture). The form of the Teleological approach identifies hypothesis as the most important factor in considering an argument.
As a component of making the Watchmaker Argument, Paley identifies components of a watch which are indicative of intelligent design. In identifying similar elements in observing natural organisms; Paley's determinative expression of the possible existence of God is challenged by Hume's indication of imperfection in design, and disconnection between God and the realm of the human. How does the existence of natural organisms as created by God, or by random phenomena; question the expectation of the role of the divine?
As a product of an inductive approach, Paley's argument offers a succinct counterpart to Hume's challenges; both preemtively addressing many of the considerations presented by Hume, and by consenting to parallels as they might be approached through the argument of Analogy.
Does Paley's argument address the applicable analogies as successfully as Hume's analogical approach? Specifically, in what ways does the idea of a clock complicate an expression of intelligence by providing a barometer for meaning, and in what ways might it help make the pattern of argument more successful?
Joshua
Did you survive the Staying Alive Thought experiment?
I did not survive the Staying Alive Thought experiment. I first decided to take the teletransporter to Mars, because that was a gurentee survival of 100%, then I chose to have the silicon chip installed in my brain to preserve my memory, personality etc. instead of being forced to loose memories/change personalities due to the virus, lastly I chose to let my body die in order to preserve my soul instead of freezing my body and letting my soul die. Through the lecture I discovered that I follow the soul theory of identity which is: Person A at time T1 is identical to person B at time T2 if and only if A and B possess the same soul. Through the choices I made in the game, I understand my thought process more because I ultimatly wanted my soul to survive through each decision I made. It was very facinating!
