The behavior of bodies obeying natural laws hardly varies and particularly always turns out well. It is evident that the behavior of such bodies is not accidental, but designed to behave in such manner. For example, the solar system is such a complex system that we cannot assume to be acting so accidentally, the planets revolve on their own orbits, and at no day will any divert from its path. The theistic proponents of the idea are St. Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. Aquinas asserts that the globe is like an arrow shot from an archer’s bow. Certainly, it has purpose, as well as directions behind it, whereby it moves towards an intended goal. Everything in nature maneuvers in what seems to be a crucial manner with the intelligence of direction (Oppy & Scott, 2010). The main goal of an acorn is to become an oak tree and will act in a certain manner so as to fulfill the purpose. In this case, it does not have own intelligence; hence, it must be designed to behave in this manner, especially as an intelligent designer.
William Paley argues in a similar way but uses the analogy of a watch. Its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, the purpose of telling the time. Hence, one can draw a conclusion that a watch was devised by intelligent mind. Even if the watch was broken or damaged you would still conclude that it had been designed by and intelligent mind. Even if you could not understand all of its working parts and how they functioned together you would still conclude that it was devised under immense intelligence. There could be no naturalistic explanation for the watch. Just as the reality of a watch imply a watchmaker, so the reality about the world reveals the greatness in designing– God (Oppy & Scott, 2010). Notice that we do not need to know the purpose of the watch or the universe in order to infer a designer - simply that the design implies a designer with a purpose. This is the argument qua purpose. The statement cannot apply to naturalists; works by Humes and other naturalists does not dispute the existence of God, but rather argues on the character of theistic God. They try to bring forward the issue of a God with Limit.
Undeniably, everything in the world happens because of a reason. This implies that there is that occurs without a sufficient objective especially to him who understands. Perhaps, it is essential to make certain the reason why something occurs and not otherwise. Matter been unresponsive in itself to rest and to motion. In the motion, we cannot find the reason for the motion and still less of a definite motion. Although the present motion that is it in the matter is taken to in the preceding yet in the long run it is difficult to make any progress because the question remains (Oppy & Scott, 2010). Therefore, this adequate motive to why and how the universe exists cannot be ascertained by bodies governed by natural laws. Therefore, the satisfactory objective that do not depend on various reasons comes from the exterior of contigent series of things. The key grounds are set up in the necessary being. The final reason of the existence of things is known as God.
Reference
Oppy, G. & Scott, M. (2010). Reading Philosophy of Religion: Selected Texts with Interactive Commentary Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
