Final answer:
Supernatural design arguments or teleological arguments do not conclusively prove the existence of a deity due to circular reasoning and the presentation of questionable evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
Do supernatural design arguments assume the conclusion? Supernatural design arguments, often known as teleological arguments, aim to infer the existence of a deity from the observation of design and purpose in the world. However, these arguments raise questions of circular reasoning by including the assumption within the premises. One example is premise 2 and 4 of a specific argument, which essentially require one to believe in God to accept the conclusion that there is a God, based on the artifact being from God.
The Burden of Proof requires that the claim of a supernatural deity be proven with reason and evidence, a standard which supernatural design arguments often fail to meet. They tend to offer questionable evidence or rely on evidence that can have alternative explanations. Instead of proving the existence of a deity, these arguments at best establish the mere logical possibility, but not the probability, of such an existence.
Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways and Paley's Teleological Argument are historical examples of teleological reasoning. They point towards the complexity and order in the universe as evidence of a designer. However, critics suggest that the appearance of design can be explained by other means, such as evolutionary processes, and does not necessarily point to a deity.