The teleological argument works on basic logic that compares the design of the universe to something of smaller proportions that is existent on earth. This is usually simplified by analogy's such as Cleanthes complexity of the world or Paley's analogy of the watch: if you were to come across a rock in a heath you wouldn't question it, but to come across a watch you would have to assume it had a designer with all the cogs giving a purpose to tell the time, therefore coming across our universe from nothing can't be by chance, and the only being that could possibly create something to the complex proportions of the universe is God. Instantly this argument is easy to use because the logic is simple and can be referred to other scientific ideas such as the complexity of the eye or artificial intelligence.
The flaw in the analogy argument comes from the references between human artifacts and the nature of the world. Hume stated that comparing nature with something that is not physically living is not completely sufficient and that the universe is more related to a living organism than to a man-made machine. Hume stated that since the object reflects the designer (e.g. a poor quality watch would be made by someone who didn't know what they were doing) the universe is very flawed in its design, which would lead to the assumption that the designer is also flawed in some way; this does not reflect the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
What's more the teleological argument for analogy automatically assumes that the penultimate designer for the universe has to be God when there is no precise information that God created the universe, and yet we all know that watches are designed by people because we have seen people design them and know how a watch works; the universe however is beyond our full knowledge and there are some things about the universe that we do not know; so how do we know that God is the one designer?
What's more the logic of the teleological argument can very easily be reversed in favour of proving that God doesn't exist using scientific logic, such as:
The flaw in the analogy argument comes from the references between human artifacts and the nature of the world. Hume stated that comparing nature with something that is not physically living is not completely sufficient and that the universe is more related to a living organism than to a man-made machine. Hume stated that since the object reflects the designer (e.g. a poor quality watch would be made by someone who didn't know what they were doing) the universe is very flawed in its design, which would lead to the assumption that the designer is also flawed in some way; this does not reflect the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
What's more the teleological argument for analogy automatically assumes that the penultimate designer for the universe has to be God when there is no precise information that God created the universe, and yet we all know that watches are designed by people because we have seen people design them and know how a watch works; the universe however is beyond our full knowledge and there are some things about the universe that we do not know; so how do we know that God is the one designer?
What's more the logic of the teleological argument can very easily be reversed in favour of proving that God doesn't exist using scientific logic, such as:
- How effective is the telelogical argument in supporting God's existence?
|
|