Teleological Argument Also Known As The Argument From Design.

A posteriori or A priori? The teleological argument is a posteriori because it is based on experience – although not an experience of God directly, but of something that proves his existence. It attempts to explain why everything has a purpose and that God exists as a designer.

Formal Argument The world around us resembles the artefacts of human creation in that it displays complexity The complexity of human artefacts comes from having been designed and made by intelligent designers – In this case humans We have no reason to assume that what holds for human artefacts should not hold for the world around us. Therefore, the complexity in the world around us comes from having been designed by an intelligent designer which would be God.

Analogy The argument is based on analogies (comparing one thing with another as they have similar characteristics) between natural complex things – like an egg or an eye – and things which have been designed by intelligent beings – like a watch.

Objections! Hume’s objection is that the analogy is too weak. He says that the universe is not similar enough to human artefacts so not strong enough to provide the basis of an argument about the existence of God. A reply to this would be that sometimes analogies can be helpful as they can help us to understand difficult concepts and make things seem simpler.

Another Objection…. Hume also puts forward the ‘too many designers’ as an objection. Many things that have been made by intelligent designers – being humans – have been made by more than one designer. So if there is more than one designer of things humans have made then there could surely be more than one designer of the world meaning more than one God. Hume uses the example of building a house.

Response. Hume uses an analogy himself to dismiss the analogy of design. He is making a weak analogy between lots of people building a house and the fact there could then be more than one God.

Paley’s Take On The Argument William Paley took another analogy of it and made it more sophisticated. He uses the watch on a beach. If you are walking on a beach and see a rock you think nothing of it as it is a natural object. But if you see a watch sitting on the beach you would think it wasn’t meant to be there and had a designer. It is complex, has order and a purpose. Paley then uses an analogy to compare the watch to the world as it is also complex, has order and has a purpose so it must therefore also have a designer which would be God.

Natural Objects… Paley uses a humming bird to show that natural objects have order and purpose as well. As they also show these characteristics they must have also been designed by God.

The Anthropic Principle This is saying that things have been made the way they are for a reason. Like the Earth’s distance from the sun as if we were any closer to the sun we wouldn’t survive as it would be too hot or any further away it would be too cold. Gravity also supports this as if it were any stronger on Earth we would be squished into the ground and if it were any weaker we would float away.

Criticisms - Evolution Darwin offered a theory for order and complexity in the natural world. He said that this can occur as things adapt naturally to their environment without the need of a designer as God. This was a better explanation as why things were fit for purpose in the natural world. Although this seems to disprove God it only says he wasn’t involved with Evolution. But another point is that Evolution needed something to start it off and this could be God.

Hidden Premises The argument contains a hidden premise that disorder is the natural state of the world: things only become ordered as a result of a designer. This criticism suggests that order may happen naturally.

Bad Design? If God had designed the world he wouldn’t have put flaws in it, would he? For example he wouldn’t allow people to be born blind. There is also a moth somewhere that has a sole purpose to live for one day as it has no mouth. What would be the point in that?

So What Is God Like? This argument only tells us that he would be an initial designer – not what he is like! It tells us nothing about him at all. In response, the argument only tries to show that he is the designer and not what the designer is like