(a) Present an account of Design argument to prove the existence of God along with its criticism by David Hume. (20 marks) (b)…

The rational justification of religious belief rests on an interconnected matrix concerning God’s existence, the coherence of divine attributes amidst evil, and the epistemic modes through which ultimate reality is known.

The Design Argument and Hume’s Critique

The teleological argument infers an intelligent creator from the observed order, intricacy, and adaptation in nature. In its classical analogical form, William Paley compares the universe to a watch: just as the intricate coordination of gears toward an end necessitates an intelligent watchmaker, the vastly superior mechanical complexity of nature necessitates an omnipotent designer. Richard Swinburne updates this into a probabilistic, inductive argument: given the cosmic fine-tuning and temporal regularities of the universe, theism provides the simplest and most probable cumulative explanation for cosmic order. This resembles the classical Nyāya inference (anumāna) where the cosmos, possessing the character of an effect (kāryatva), implies an intelligent agent (kartā).

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume systematically dismantles the argument. First, he challenges the analogy: the universe is unique, organic, and vast; comparing it to a human-made mechanical artifact is a weak analogy (non sequitur). Second, finite and flawed effects cannot warrant an infinite, perfect cause; the argument fails to rule out multiple, imperfect, or infant designers. Third, the Epicurean hypothesis demonstrates that given finite matter and infinite time, particles randomly organizing into temporary states of apparent order is statistically inevitable without teleology. Finally, the prevalence of suffering and dysteleology undermines the inference of a morally perfect, benevolent deity.

Process Theodicy

Hume’s critique of classical omnipotence directly motivates Process Theodicy, formulated by Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. Process theology reconstructs theism on a dipolar model: God possesses an eternal, immutable Primordial nature (providing the conceptual lure of possibilities) and a temporal, dynamic Consequent nature (absorbing and suffering alongside the actualized world).

Rather than creating ex nihilo and wielding coercive omnipotence, God exercises persuasive power. Creation consists of dynamic "actual occasions" endowed with genuine indeterminacy and freedom. Evil is not an illusion—as in Advaita Vedānta’s *māyāvāda*—nor a divinely ordained instrument, but the inevitable metaphysical byproduct of creaturely freedom and cosmic novelty. Because God cannot unilaterally coerce finite entities without annihilating their self-creative agency, God cannot simply prevent evil. By divesting God of coercive omnipotence, Process Theodicy evades Hume’s dilemma: God is wholly benevolent and shares in worldly suffering, but is structurally incapable of preventing discordant actualizations.

Natural Theology vs. Revealed Theology in Propositional Revelation

The Propositional view of revelation, championed by theologians like B.B. Warfield and Carl Henry, conceptualizes revelation not merely as divine presence, but as the communication of objective, intelligible truth-claims and cognitive propositions in scripture.

Within this framework, Natural Theology and Revealed Theology are distinct in their epistemic foundations. Natural Theology operates via unaided human reason and empirical observation, attempting to establish divine attributes through rational demonstrations like cosmological and teleological arguments. In contrast, Revealed Theology derives its truths strictly from divine self-disclosure in scripture, demanding faith and cognitive assent to divine authority (śabda-pramāṇa or Nyāya’s īśvaravāṇī).

While Karl Barth rejected Natural Theology entirely as a human attempt at self-justification, propositionalists maintain that while Natural Theology renders humanity without excuse, it remains incomplete without the special, inerrant propositions of Revealed Theology. However, this distinction risks collapsing: if human reason requires the normative grid of divine propositions to correctly interpret natural order, Natural Theology ultimately becomes subordinate to Revealed authority.

These debates demonstrate that natural proofs invite foundational empirical critiques, compelling revisions of classical divine attributes, while the cognitive validity of theological truth rests on resolving the epistemic boundary between reason and revelation.