Teleological argument

=== Newton and Leibniz ===
[[Isaac Newton]] affirmed his belief in the truth of the argument when, in 1713, he wrote these words in an appendix to the second edition of his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia'']]:
{{blockquote|text=This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.<ref>Newton, I., quoted in Huyssteen, JWV. (ed.), ''Encyclopedia of Science and Religion'', Macmillan, 2003, p. 621.</ref>}}

This view, that "God is known from his works", was supported and popularized by Newton's friends [[Richard Bentley]], [[Samuel Clarke]] and [[William Whiston]] in the [[Boyle lectures]], which Newton supervised.<ref>Leshem, A., ''Newton on Mathematics and Spiritual Purity'', Springer, 2003, p. 19.</ref> Newton wrote to Bentley, just before Bentley delivered the first lecture, that:

{{blockquote|text=when I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe {{sic}} of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.<ref>Leshem, A., ''Newton on Mathematics and Spiritual Purity'', Springer, 2003, p. 20.</ref>}}

The German philosopher [[Gottfried Leibniz]] disagreed with Newton's view of design in the teleological argument. In the [[Leibniz–Clarke correspondence]], Samuel Clarke argued Newton's case that God constantly intervenes in the world to keep His design adjusted, while Leibniz thought that the universe was created in such a way that God would not need to intervene at all. As quoted by Ayval Leshem, Leibniz wrote:{{blockquote|text=According to [Newton's] doctrine, God Almighty wants [i.e. needs] to wind up his watch from time to time; otherwise it would cease to move. He had not it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion<ref>Leshem, A., ''Newton on Mathematics and Spiritual Purity'', Springer, 2003, pp. 21–22.[https://books.google.com/books?id=fD-qvJp0Q5kC&dq=argument+from+design+%22Samuel+Clarke%22&pg=PA19]</ref>}}

Leibniz considered the argument from design to have "only moral certainty" unless it was supported by his own idea of [[pre-established harmony]] expounded in his [[Monadology]].<ref>Pomerlaeau, ''Western Philosophies Religion'', Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998, p. 180.</ref> [[Bertrand Russell]] wrote that "The proof from the pre-established harmony is a particular form of the so-called physico-theological proof, otherwise known as the argument from design." According to Leibniz, the universe is completely made from individual substances known as [[monad (philosophy)|monads]], programmed to act in a predetermined way.<ref>''Encyclopædia Britannica'': "monads are basic substances that make up the universe but lack spatial extension and hence are immaterial. Each monad is a unique, indestructible, dynamic, soullike entity whose properties are a function of its perceptions and appetites."</ref> Russell wrote:
{{blockquote|text=In Leibniz's form, the argument states that the harmony of all the monads can only have arisen from a common cause. That they should all exactly synchronize, can only be explained by a Creator who pre-determined their synchronism.<ref>Russell, B., ''A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz,'', Routledge, 2005, First published 1900, p. 218.</ref>}}