Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God - Essay Example

Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God The question of whether or not God exists has provided fodder for thousands ofyears’ worth of debate with innumerable tomes written for both sides and in some cases people even being killed and persecuted for their opinions. Very few fields of philosophical and theological thought have received the attention this topic has and yet today the matter is still as blurred as it was centuries ago. To some, the existence of God is axiomatic; they base their argument of faith and claim that those who oppose them do so from spiritual ignorance and naivety. Conversely, others are just as sure about his nonexistence basing their argument mostly on the fact that there is insufficient proof of his existence. At the end of the day, it would be self-deceptive to imagine that there is a definitive way to prove of them either right or wrong since whichever position one holds is always vulnerable to challenges. A major one in this issue arises in that many people (Confessional Theists) will refuse to engage in debate over the matter since according to them, it is a pointless endeavour given that God is beyond the range of human comprehension. Nevertheless, this paper seeks to contend through teleological philosophical argument that God does actually exists and to this end it will examine some of the major arguments that have been posited in support of his presence. There have been numerous arguments such as Anselm’s ontological one claiming that God exists because it would be impossible for us to conceive a being greater than him, however this and many others are based on premises that are pre-created in the argument itself (Oppy). They start by claiming that God is a being which a greater one cannot be conceived by the human mind, therefore by proving this claim argue they prove he exists. However, this original claim is not necessarily correct and there is no way of telling even if there was a God, humans could not transcend his attributed in their imagination. Conversely, teleological arguments have proven more convincing; these are arguments that based their proof of God’s existence on the fact that the universe is full of evidences of an intelligent creator. Also known as arguments from design, they deduce from the intelligent designs in the world proofs that the universe could not possible have occurred by accident but it reflects the mind of a creator who needs must be God (Nolan). Hume posits that when one considers and contemplate every part of the world, they will discover that it is inherently a singular machine or organism that has been divided and subdivide into sub-machines and system. They have then been divided into numerous infinite levels, which surpasses the understanding of a human being. Taking to account that there was a time when atoms had not been discovered to be the building blocks of matter, this arguments sounds quiet credible. Hume proceeds to explain that all these machines inspire awe and wonder from all who gaze upon them; indeed watching the wildebeest migration in the Serengeti; East Africa or studying the water cycle of how the earth, Ocean, Sun and clouds work in harmony to provide the life with rain is quite impressive. He argues that all systems and organism on the planet are dependent on each other in a way and that nature in many ways is similar to the mind of a man albeit with larger and more powerful faculties. Therefore, Hume concludes that there must be a creator who has put all this together and his existence can be readily inferred from the rules of analogy (Holder 50). However, Hume’s argument only agrees with believers in as far as it proves the existence of an intelligent creator, he does not see any reason to use it as a basis to support a monotheist deity. In fact, he claims that it is just as possible that if one intelligent creator can exist, then there could have been many of them working towards the same purpose. A more intensive and complex teleological argument is forward by William Parley, he compares the universe to a watch and demonstrated his view point with an analogy. Assume, one finds a watch on the ground, if one was told to explain its presence therein, he argues they would hardly claim it has always been there which the claim most people make in response to the Universe’s existence when making a case for the absence of God (Himma). If one may not them claim the watch was always there, how they would not make the same assumption for a stone a mountain or any other object or entity occurring in the universe. Parley proposed two features of the watch that bespeak intelligent design, for one it is designed to perform function that intelligent entities, in this case humans would regard as valuable (Dembski 23). Secondly, it would be impossible for the watch to perform these functions had it not been for the fact that its parts are all fully aligned and specialized for them. When this two attributes are combined, they endow upon the watch a complexity in the functional sense that allows one to distinguish objects with and without intelligent design. Parley then argues that the watch has the same attributes as the universe in that each part contributes to the overall result only that nature is greater and more complex due to the numerous parts that comprise it. At this point, one can deduce his argument founded on the conventions he appear to share with Hume that based on evidence of the intricately complicated design of the universe there must be a superior being behind it all. Hume criticizes his own argument on the basis that there is too great a distinction between the works of nature and human artefacts, based on the depth of his analogy. Paley’s watchmaker’s argument is relatively safe from this line of criticism since he bases it on the supposition that both natural and human artefacts exhibit a set of similar functional attributes that warrant the justification of the intelligent designer’s existence. While both philosophers and religious believers use the design argument as proof of a Supreme Being and Gods existence respectively, Darwinism has heavily criticized it and many hold the belief that evolution renders irrelevant. This criticism is based on the assumption that evolution was a step by step process in which creatures develop from lower to more complex forms through a variety of process like natural selection and adaptation (Himma). According to this theory, design intelligence cannot be correct since it assume that all the phenomenal and occurrences in the universe are highly improbable so the fact that they have actually occurred is evidence of some intelligent contribution. However, Darwinists opposed Teleological arguments by claiming that by examining phenomenal in the complexity of its completion, one may be impressed by the “being” that created it. Nevertheless, an examination of the same from the various simple stages until it develops into the complex whole leave the credit to a series of small steps that make the result both inevitable and unsurprising. Therefore, according to them, the universe has developed itself though adapting and continuously growing and developing as it no doubt continues to do even today. To some extent, the Darwinist perspective does indeed appear to overshadow the teleological view, however this is only because the former tend to assume that their ability to explain the origin of phenomenal profoundly simplifies its existence and formation. They oppose teleological reasoning on the basis that it exaggerates the complicity the formation of life only because they lack understating on the steps that were taken to bring it about. However, in defence of teleology’s supporters on should consider that the very fact that the infinitesimal organisms have the capacity to develop into multifarious multicellular ones culminating into intelligent life forms means they were intelligently designed. Furthermore, Darwinism does not also explain the synchrony between neither the seasons nor the alignment of the planets and solar system that provide precise conditions for the processes that have enabled the formation of life to take place. While allowing for imperfections in the theoretical foundations of the argument, the teleological explanation appears to hold more merit than any other does since its explanations transcend the biological or even earthy ones. It forces one to consider the harmony that allows the earth to function by depending on the actions of various heavenly bodies such as the sun. Life on earth requires that the temperature be just so, and the atmosphere is the perfect mix or plants and animals life the not to mention the existence of water which is universally soluble allows living organisms to survive. The theory of an intelligent designer who many assume is God and in whose image humans are created does not seem as farfetched when one considered that if the sun was a kilometre closer or the earth a few tens of miles smaller life as we know it would simply not exists. The wonders within and without the natural universe leave one with little doubt of the fact that there must indeed be a God who can only be perceive through his the undeniable intelligence of his designs. Works Cited Dembski, William A. "The intelligent design movement." Cosmic Pursuit 1.2 (1998): 22-26. Himma, Kenneth. “Design Arguments for the Existence of God”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.d. Web. 30 Juy 2014 Holder, Rodney D. "Hume on miracles: Bayesian interpretation, multiple testimony, and the existence of God." The British journal for the philosophy of science 49.1 (1998): 49-65. Nolan, Lawrence, "Descartes Ontological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011 Web. 30 Juy 2014 Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012 Web. 30 Juy 2014 Read More