If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not. Humans are flawed in many ways including the fact that we have extra organs, and that our skeletons are not created properly for the way we walk. Humans are not machines in any way, and the fact that we are not perfect machines is explained by the theory of evolution. Therefore the theory of evolution is proof against the teleological argument and that God is the creator of the human race and the earth. I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God.
His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God. (C) Therefore God must exist both in the mind and in reality. This method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the very opposite of what you are trying to prove. In Anselm’s case this would be that God does not exist, which he claims is absurd by means of an argument which he claims is logically necessary. For Anselm, God cannot not exist.
Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument. He argued that the ontological argument is invalid as we cannot define God ‘for the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God’. Aquinas rejects that there can be
They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world. For the Deist, God is the creator of the universe. God really exists but he does not and cannot intervene within the world. And lastly, for the Atheist, there is no God to bring about any kind of miracle. I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity.
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
He does not see why order means there has to be a designer. However, he is open to the idea of a designer or creator but doesn’t see why this has to be a God. He believes that there are many different possibilities such as a “team of Gods” or even a totally different entity. Hume believes the world is far too complex to be compared to something as simple as the mechanism of a watch. He believes there truly is no comparison.
J. Ayer claimed that to speak of a designed universe is meaningless. Unless we could say what the world would have been like without a designer, we cannot reach the conclusion that this world is designed. Who establishes that there is beneficial order in the universe? How do we argue from that to the conclusion that god has designed it? Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation.
Taking Aristotle’s prime mover that exists outside of space and time and therefore cannot have any matter and so can’t run does this mean that we are better than God by being able to do something he cannot. Therefore God isn’t omnipotent. Even in the presence of such difficulties Rene Descartes holds the view that God can do everything; following the definition that omnipotence is a kind of
An argument against this however is the cause of God. Experience shows that nothing can be the cause of itself. The first cause argument also states that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It also defines God as the uncaused first cause because he is the only being capable of existing without a cause. The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe began to exist.
I agree with him. He compares the universe to a watch, and God to the watchmaker. However, it does make sense to think that if we never knew of a watch maker we would not even know a watch at sight. In this argument, Paley states that “the universe is so intricate and orderly that only a being of extreme immense intelligence