In philosophy, there is an argument called the teleological argument. It can also be called the design argument, and it basically states that if something has order and therefore design, then there has to be a designer. The argument goes like this, “1. The world exhibits design. 2. Exhibiting design implies a designer. SC. The world has a designer. C. God exists.” I believe the teleological argument fails in establishing the existence of God. I believe this argument fails because it is invalid, provides false dichotomies, and has no proof the designer of the world is the 3-O (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) God. The 3-O God is a huge factor because the whole point of this argument is to try to prove that this all powerful, all knowing, and all good God exists. …show more content…
The premises say nothing about God and then it just appears in the conclusion. Philosophy has taught that a conclusion cannot just come from nowhere. It has to appear somewhere in the argument before it can appear in the conclusion. The idea of design shows up all throughout the argument so that is okay, but God does not show up until the conclusion and that is not okay. Supporters of this argument have tried to save it by adding to it. After the SC. the world has a designer, a fourth premise was added that states the designer is God so then the conclusion is still God exists. The thought here is that since God was mentioned in a premise he can now be in the conclusion. I do not think adding this premise saves the argument. It just simply fixes the validity heuristic