A Rulebook for Arguments- God’s Existence

In his book, A Rulebook for Arguments author Anthony Weston explains the rules for good argumentation. However, at times, Weston has difficulty following his own advice. Accordingly, the following analysis provides three examples of the author undermining his own recommendations followed by a brief analysis of David Hume’s argumentation against the teleological argument for God’s existence.

First, Weston refers to a famous argument for the existence of God, which states that houses must have designers, and since the world is a like a house, the world must have a designer.[1] Hume attempts to undermine the teleological argument by suggesting the world is not relevantly similar to a house.[2] In response to Hume’s argument Weston agrees and further claims the “universe as a whole may contain its cause within itself.”[3] Unfortunately, Weston’s logic is a non sequitur in that his conclusion does not follow the evidence. In other words, Weston argues that the world, which does exist, may cause itself to exist within itself ex nihilo. Weston appears to be suggesting the possibility that a rock, for instance, may have the ability to create itself. The irony is that by Weston suggesting the opposite of a designer and arguing a cause within itself, his conclusions lead to a reductio ad absurdum resulting in the silly notion that a beautiful house may create itself, thus actually proving the very thing he opposes – a designer.[4]

Second, Weston continues his attempt to support Hume by stating that it is possible that the world “has some kind of cause unique to universes.”[5] First, Weston’s comment is a red herring because it has nothing to do with Hume’s assertion that a cause is absent. Second, by Weston suggesting a unique cause to the universes, he undermines his previous assertion that world possibly created itself. Finally, by suggesting a unique cause, Weston’s attempt to support Hume’s argument actually undermines it by supporting the possibility of a designer, even an Intelligent Designer, who may fulfill the role of a unique cause.

Finally, Weston appropriately encourages researchers to seek impartial sources.[6] The author then concludes, “The truth as one honestly sees it can still be biased.”[7] Certainly, it is possible for bias to occur within the constructs of individual opinions. However, if objective truth exists, then truth becomes a reality and not a perspective based on the way one perceives it, which then eliminates bias. In fact, Weston’s statement against bias actually exemplifies a biased approach toward truth by assuming a relativism that assumes all truth “as one honestly sees it can still be biased.”[8]

Although the deconstruction of Weston’s assertions is rather straightforward, Hume makes argumentation more difficult. First, in response to the teleological argument for God’s existence, Hume argues, “Is part of nature a rule for the whole?”[9] It is possible that part of nature is not a rule for the whole. However, if part of nature, a house, requires a creator, it seems that the whole of nature would require something more of a creator, not less. In other words, it appears illogical to conclude that more sophistication requires less of a designer. Accordingly, even if Hume’s argument against the analogy is effective, it is possible Hume finds himself in an ad ignorantiam by arguing that an Intelligent Designer does not exist just because an Intelligent Designer has not been proven by analogy. In fact, William Paley later proves that Hume’s myopic focus on disproving the teleological argument for God caused the philosopher to overlook alternatives that support an Intelligent Designer. Specifically, Paley’s famous watchmaker analogy undermined Hume’s argument just a few decades after Hume’s death.[10] Finally, as Christians, it is difficult to ignore the biblical evidence supporting the teleological argument for God’s existence in Psalms 19, Acts 14:17 and 17:24-27.