美国宾夕法尼亚论文代写:自然神学
Keywords:美国宾夕法尼亚论文代写
也许最著名的版本的说法从设计来自于他的自然神学1802 William Paley。[ 2 ]在这里，帕利认为，如果你走在一片荒地，你碰巧遇到一个石头，然后你可以合理地认为它是由随机因素所涉及的各要素如热引起的，风雨等等。如果你遇到但是一看，那么你将无法使用的机会为其创造一个有效的参数，因为它涉及许多精密零件如齿轮、弹簧等，一起为了看工作。我们必须假设，一些情报已经投入到创造手表，因此，它根本不可能来纯粹通过机会因素。帕利认为，当我们把宇宙看作一个整体时，我们看到的是无限的更复杂的物体，而不是看的问题，所以宇宙就不能仅仅通过偶然的机会而产生。帕利认为，如果我们以前从未见过手表，如果手表出问题，或者我们不知道手表的某些部分是如何工作的，这个位置不会减弱。Palmer（2001:95）指出，艾萨克·牛顿采用了一种类似的说法在讨论人类的眼睛，声称这是太复杂也不智能设计。这一论点的其他版本都可以在阿奎那的作品中找到（扬德尔1999:204）和伯克利（沙赫特1984:168）等。从设计的观点是整齐地总结了休姆（1947:143）然而在他死后出版的关于自然宗教的对话
美国宾夕法尼亚论文代写:自然神学
Perhaps the most renowned version of the argument from design comes from William Paley in his Natural Theology of 1802.[2] Here Paley argues that if you were walking through a wasteland and you happened to come across a stone, then you could legitimately argue that it was caused by random factors involving various elements such as heat, rain wind and so on. If you were to come across a watch however, then you would be unable to use chance as a valid argument of its creation, as it involves many precise components such as cogs, springs and so on which work together in order for the watch to work. We must assume that some intelligence has gone into creating the watch therefore, as it simply could not have come about purely through chance factors. Paley then argues that when we look at the universe as a whole we see infinitely more complex objects in existence than the watch in question, so the universe as a whole cannot have come about through mere chance. Paley argues that this position is not weakened if we have never seen a watch before, if the watch goes wrong or if we do not understand how some parts of the watch work. As Palmer (2001:95) notes, Isaac Newton uses a similar argument when discussing the human eye, claiming that it is far too complicated and intricate to have come about without intelligent design. Other versions of this argument can be found in the works of Aquinas (Yandell 1999:204) and Berkeley (Schacht 1984:168) amongst others. The argument from design is neatly summed up by Hume (1947:143) however in his posthumously published Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
