Design Theory Argument

Tiera Suggs
R. McCashland
Philosophy 101
Final Paper

Final Philosophy Paper

I will oppose Bertrand Russell’s view that believing in God is trivial and that of humans poor imagination. I will use Tim Holt’s “Philosophy of Religion” to show how believing in God is more logical than not. Russell uses a few arguments to try an disprove the existence of God in “Why I am not a Christian.” I will address the “First Cause Argument,” the “Design Theory Argument,” and the “Morality Argument.” I will touch briefly on what Russell believes and then use common and widely accepted theories to refute Russell. Russell uses many reasons to support his disbelief of God and refutes many known theories explaining God but
It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.” What makes his standpoint questionable is the fact that he is trying to simplify the complexity of the nature of humans and leaves it to coincidence.. Yes we adapt to our surroundings but how? By chance? That is too unbelievable, organs as complicated as the heart or lungs function sequentially because of chance? That notion is not logical. In “Philosophy of Religion”, The Teleological Argument however is, stating that the world was created and exists with a purpose in mind. The universe is a ordered system and nothing is left to chance. The Teleological Argument is more believable than Russell’s ‘just because’ so called
He believes God is not the reason for right and wrong, because if you believe in God, you believe he is all good. So how can something all good create wrong? But one can refute Russell’s statement by simply saying, morality is a set of commands so there must be a commander (Holt Philosophy of religion). The Formal Moral Argument states:

(1) Morality consists of a set of commands.
(2) For every command there is a commander.
Therefore:
(3) There is a commander that commanded morality.
(4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.
(5) Morality carries ultimate authority.
Therefore:
(6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.
(7) Only God carries ultimate authority.
Therefore:
(8) The commander that commanded morality is God.
Therefore:
(9) God exists.

The Formal Moral Argument seems more plausible than Russell’s theory. It follows a clear system and answers questions of morality, while Russell just bears the conclusion of God is good so there cannot be bad. Again, Russell’s theories are illogical and incomplete compared to ones he is trying to disprove. Russell fails to clarify his statement, his argument is not convincing and is a premature conclusion about God that he cannot even