Summary Of The Teleological Argument For God's Existence

Who made the world we live in? This question has been debated for thousand of years and it is been the main fuel in many philosophers work. The Teleological Argument for God's Existence also known as the argument from design; it is the argument that our world and the universe surrounding it are complex that it was not created by accident, it was however designed by a intelligent designer. In 1802, William Paley created his analogical version of the teleological argument using an analogy of a watch. According to Ernest Nagel, Teleological argument is based on empirical evidence. In this essay, from what I have read about the Teleological Argument for God’s existence I will explain the Teleological Argument and show that the world is not like

Paley analogy states “Imagine you live on a desolate desert island and one day you come across a watch, by looking at it and examining, the intricate and complicated mechanisms you would conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer.” There is some value to his analogy, therefore what Paley is saying is that if we were to find a watch we haven’t seen before, we would be able logically conclude by what we have seen on the watch, it was therefore made by an intelligent designer. Also it concludes the natural world manifests the same interrelation of its parts as a watch. So, we can conclude that an intelligent designer makes the natural world and that designer is God. In addition, the teleological argument displays the flaws in the infamous theory of

If the designer is intelligent, why does our universe have so much chaos such as the destructive meteor volcanoes, and earthquakes? Paley believes the following possible objections are incompetent to challenge his analogical argument. Paley’s response to my main argument would be, just because we don't know who the designer might be, it doesn't mean there is not a creator. We never knew the designer capable of making the universe or we do not know how the work was accomplished. I would say if the parts of the universe do not work perfectly; then the designer is neither intelligent nor evident. However, Paley’s response will be; it is not necessary to show that something is perfect in order to show that there is a design present. I will also state we have no clue who the artist capable of making the universe and we do not know how the work was accomplished, Paley's response; would be because we don't know who the designer might be, it is it not fair to simply rule out that there is not one. Some parts of the universe seem to have no task and some areas were not created probably. In my opinion, Paley's will respond by saying, just because we do not know the task of those parts does not indicate that there is no function. The universe is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. One knows nothing at all about the foundation of the universe. Paley’s response; Therefore, by seeing the parts of the