Whenever someone who believes in God brings this point about I am usually at a loss for word. This is the only one where I cannot form a decent argument myself.
So, what would be a refutation and counter argument to the teleological argument, so I can better arm myself for the future?
Uh, which teleological argument we talking about? There's plenty of them.
Intelligent Design is a teleological argument that's easy to take down.
The "watch must have a watchmaker" type is the one I get the most.
Whenever someone who believes in God brings this point about I am usually at a loss for word. This is the only one where I cannot form a decent argument myself.
So, what would be a refutation and counter argument to the teleological argument, so I can better arm myself for the future?
Whenever someone who believes in God brings this point about I am usually at a loss for word. This is the only one where I cannot form a decent argument myself.
So, what would be a refutation and counter argument to the teleological argument, so I can better arm myself for the future?
I would suggest to them that they do not understand how evolution works. Characteristics that better our chances of survival remain because the life form who has chanced upon that mutation is more likely to survive and reproduce. If you look at evolution in retrospect it is easy to deduce that a mutation was "designed" to address a flaw that threatened us. In reality however, it was chance that evolved a trait which in turn was more likely to be passed on to offspring because the parents survived.
In that case one creationist response would be that's part of the "creative process." Then point to the example of a sculptor who tries many different aspects before she arrives at the finished product.
Are you saying that that person then is embracing the evolutionary process and suggesting that evolution is Gods work?
I found some creationists who do just that. Others stick to mystical biblical timelines and believe evidence of evolution was created to suit God's purpose. I am not a creationist; just gave you an example of one response I've heard used to counter your argument.
I understood what you were doing no worries there.
So why wouldn't God get it right the first time? Since we're playing the game.
I understood what you were doing no worries there.
So why wouldn't God get it right the first time? Since we're playing the game.
My response is to ask them to define "order," and then explain why this needs conscious design? Wouldn't "order" exist whether or not we had the conscious ability to recognized it as such?
In that case one creationist response would be that's part of the "creative process." Then point to the example of a sculptor who tries many different aspects before she arrives at the finished product.
Well, what's "right?"
The "watch must have a watchmaker" type is the one I get the most.
It's an oversimplified example. We know watches are made by humans because we make them. We have direct and measurable proof of humans and of watches and of watches being made by humans. Therefore it is very reasonable to see a watch and assume it is there through human intervention.
But there is no such proof with gods and the universe. If you see something that had no known creator and no creator has ever been observed, it is rational to suggest a natural process could be at root. Design, as Hume would argue, is only applicable when order and purpose are observed to occur only when they result from design.
The watchmaker analogy tries to gloss over larger implications and presents a false choice predicated upon out existing knowledge and experience with watches.
You could say the same thing about the Pyramids. :shrug:
What? That there's plenty of evidence that they were constructed by man and that we've even found machinery that was used to help cut and move large stone blocks? Yeah...that is true.
How do you know that stuff didn't just appear? :roll:
Archaeology and science.
You KNOW that, or assume that? Were you there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?