Talk:William Paley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
William Paley is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
[edit] comments
Does anyone have an arguement against William Paley? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.24.249 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC).
What's interesting about "design" arguments are the implications on time. A "good' design points the time arrow forward and allows for an increase in entropy. Reductionist suggest everything is the result of chance mechanism, resulting in entropy decreasing. Likewise with general evolution, that is evolution of Kind, complexity increases with no explaination of system architecture authorship.
- To exist, the complexity of the universe must have had a creator. However, one could argue that the creator himself must have been created, as he himself is complex. Therefore, there is an everlasting paradox; who created the creator of creator, etc? This then leads to the idea that the (original) creator cannot be all powerful, because he himself was created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.155.242 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 9 November 2004 (UTC).
-
- Paley's work fascinated Darwin, which he did not concur with. However the above suggestion that the creator was created is a fallacy because in monotheism God by definition is eternal and uncreated. To ask who created the creator involves the fallacy of the eternal regress. This problem was posed by Bertrand Russell and was answered by Frederick Copleston, and also by Alvin Plantinga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.180.218 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC).
-
-
- The assertion that the complexity of the universe must have had a creator is an argument from personal incredulity (as is every other creationist argument), so Paley's argument is illogical on its face. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- There are numerous, see Teleological argument Sam Hayes 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Watchmaker analogy is not at all a logical argument, since it assumes arbitrarily that there must be an uncreated creator. It is an argument, yes, but of the aesthetical variety, not logical. Luis Dantas 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quote
In more modern times, William Paley popularized the design argument with his great book, Natural Theology, first published in 1802, profoundly influencing the English speaking world of his day—even including Charles Darwin! The book began with a detailed description of the "irreducible complexity" of a functioning watch, noting that even the most rabid skeptic would acknowledge that the watch—or at least its prototype—must have been designed and made by a skilled watchmaker. Just so, he argued persuasively, the much more complex universe required a universe-maker. These themes of intelligent design are compellingly developed at great length in Paley's 402-page book. [1]
