The teleological theory offers no scientific evidence, or evidence of any kind for the creation of the universe, it is based loosely on an analogy. The analogy opinion is too broad to be valid. I believe that things like volcanos and earthquakes that happen naturally are better explained by science. These things seem more probable in a universe that was created randomly by science, by the big bang, than if the universe was created specifically for a certain function by
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.
According to Aquinas, the chain of movement cannot go back to infinity. So there must have been a first, unmoved mover who began the movement of everything in the universe. Aquinas argued that this was God. Aquinas said that objects only changed because of some external force had brought about the change. He used the idea of objects having the potential to become actual but said that this could
As with all debates, however, there is more than one side, and I am going to present my arguments as rebuttals for McCloskey. According to McCloskey, We can’t say that there is a necessarily existing being that is the cause of the universe. There are a few issues with this idea. First, to say that an uncaused cause would not exist would be faulty. If you are to look at the universe and say that there was no cause, it just is and always has been, then you are making the point of an uncaused cause.
How does God connect to the universe? He created the entire universe, does that include time and space as well? If God did create time and space, then God must have been somehow outside of both time and space. This has been the thought of philosophers from Augustine through Aquinas. So what exactly does it mean to be “timeless?” One could say that to be timeless is simply to be and exist beyond time.
It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe. This is consistent with some views of God, however, it is far from an all-encompassing explanation. The argument is not considered to be the end-all-be-all defense for the existence of God. However, it is a good
Although this possibility does not address the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It supports certain finite causes. An infinite regress of causes for existence could have not started off from a first cause because the finite cause caused the first and a finite cause caused that find and so forth, meaning that the if you Consider C then you have to consider A because both possibilities acknowledge that there’s an infinite cause of existence. This possibility is implausible because it is already confirmed that the universe is finite and that a first finite cause caused the universe into being. This possibility infinitely fights off the problem of
However, this would be absurd, seeing as that nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyway. So a being, which nothing greater can be conceived, God, does in fact exist. According to Joel Fienberg’s text, Reason and Responsibility, an Ontological argument is defined as “an argument for the existence of God stating that the very concept or definition of God automatically entails that God exists; because the special nature of the concept, there is no way that God could fail to exist” (pg. 722). This argument is formulated around the idea that God is a being, which no greater being can be conceived.
As far as restoring God "to his rightful place in the universe" is concerned, I doubt that any amount of arguing, scientific or otherwise, will convince the skeptic or disuade the believer. In short there is no simple solution to the God question. Indeed, God is one of those central problems of constructing a theory of man. Even an atheist constructing a theory