2.2.2 teleological Arguments

Things without intelligence have a purpose.

Because they are unintelligent they evidently have to be directed by something with intelligence and knowledge

By analogy God directs all unintelligent beings to their end.

e.g an arrow needs an archer to direct it

• some animals are very intelligent e.g monkeys
• presupposes comclusion
• seeds grow without intelligent interference thus this does not fit our observation
• evolved to be able to do stuff.

A watch seems to suggest a designer as it has the following features:

• several parts
• the parts work together to an end
• a specific material has been chosen which is appropriate
• together the parts produce regular motion
• sich motion would not occur were there any differences in the parts

this all applies to the world which suggests that there is a God.

• We know nothing of world design so how can we imply a designer.
• some things have no obvious purpose - evolutionary hang overs
• could this not be chalked down to natural/random processes?
• the world doesn't necessarily work perfectly

At this time time the world was seen as a glorious machine due to the work of Galileo, Newton and Copernicus.

• We can still make inferences 
• we are not yet aware of their purpose
• we do not comprehend the criteria of the designer 

What if the watch could self replicate then there would be no need for a designer 

evolution adds to this theory - self-replication comes with imporvement

• Payley rejects the idea of an infinite regress

We have direct or indirect experience of the manufacture of objects

If this was not the case we could not infer a designer

We have not experienced a universe making process so we shouldn't infer God from it.

• Not true - I dont know how computers are a made but i'd probably think there's a designer
  • We can only infer design through comparison but there is only one universe we have access to and even there only one part so we cannot infer design.

Criticism A  - this analogy undermines the perfection of God

Criticism B - this analogy undermines the analogy itself

Machinery that is very complex comes from a trial and error process

Therefore if this analogy is correct we come from a series of trial and error universes which will be superseded by a better one in the future

The creator is not perfect

The universe is more organic than a machine

Maybe is grew

No more odd than machine - universe analogy. - BOTH ARE POOOOOOORRRRRR

Epicurean hypothesis - over an infinite amount of time all of the finite particles in the universe will take every possible role. Basically we're an accident which is just toooo true.

This argument does not guarantee a  perfect being

Payleys arg: like effects = like causes

• complex machines are rarely one person's achievement - pantheism
• designers are very human - flawed and weak
• The design is flawed:
  • no resources
  • no skill
  • no love

• Irrelevant - still designed
  • moves too far from theistic God.

The analogy suggests an architet but not a material maker

maybe God made the world but it is not justified to argue that He made the materials

The world is regular but that does not mean that the God of classical theism caused it.

Natural Selection - Challenges the idea that God designed everything perfectly.

• accepts analogies are flawed and this is not necessarily the God of classical theism.

Types of order:

• spatial - regualrities of co-presence
• temporal - regularities of succession

Regularities of succession occur naturally and as a result of human action

can be explained by the choices of a free agent

Has power, intelligence and freedom. 

Regularities of succession in nature can be explained by natural laws

cannot be used to explain natural laws

The universe is large and complex

There are regularities of succession in the universe so there must be a SUPER free agent

1. We have no experience - well science theorises about the universe which is unique

2. Epicurean hypothesis does not apply to fundamental laws of physics so he don't give no ***** about that

3. Swinburne concedes that analogies are weak and it may not be a theistic God.