Steps in the teleological argument.?

Question

What are the steps in the teleological argument? What is the goal or the purpose of the teleological argument?

Answer 1

There are lots of different versions of the teleological argument. So there are lots of different ways of giving a step-by-step formulation of it. The goal/purpose of any of these arguments is, of course, to give good reason for believing that God exists.

Here's a formulation of Aquinas's Fifth Way:
1. All unintelligent things in nature (nearly) always act so as to obtain the best result.
2. Nothing could fortuitously (by sheer luck or chance) act in such a way.
3. Therefore [assuming that chance and design are the only two options], these unintelligent things act by design to achieve their end.
4. If an unintelligent thing acts by design to achieve an end, then it must be directed by some intelligent being.
5. Therefore, all these unintelligent things in nature must be directed by some intelligent being (i.e., God).

Here's a formulation of Cleanthes' argument in Hume's Dialogues:
1. In our experience, ordered things tend to come only from intelligent design.
2. The universe itself is ordered.
3. Therefore, if our experience is a good guide to the way things in general work, then the universe itself comes from intelligent design.
4. Our experience *is* a good guide to the way things in general work.
5. Therefore, the universe itself comes from intelligent design.

Philo criticizes step 4 in Part 2. He argues in Part 4 that if you take this argument and replace "the universe itself" with "the intelligent designer of the universe", you get the conclusion "Therefore, the intelligent designer of the universe comes from intelligent design" -- you get a God and then a Super-God and then a Super-Super-God. He argues in part 5 that the conclusion of this argument (step 5) is nowhere close to the God of traditional religion. He argues in parts 6, 7, and 8 that you could run the same argument with other explanations for order besides intelligent design and then get different results, and in the course of doing this, he criticizes step 1.

Answer 2

I don't know about the whole God teleological argument. When one says teleological, and since this is a philosophy Y/A, the Philosopher King Aristotle concept of Teleology (which has nothing to do with God!) comes immediately to mind.

Aristotles "meaning of life" was written in the concept of teleology that can be applied to everything. It was in this that man could find virtue and purpose.

Every event is divided into 4 causes. It is these four causes that make up Teleogy.

#1: Material Cause - the stuff the "thing" is made of
#2: Efficient Cause - the force that brought it into being
#3: Formal Cause - the shape or idea (Platos Form) of the thing
#4: Final Clause - the purpose of the thing

The material cause and efficient causes are pretty self explanatory. When one gets to the formal cause, it steps outside the realm of Platos Forms; but still holds on to its tenets. Plato saw Forms as existing outside the realm of perception whereas Aristotle said the Form in Teleology is in the object itself. The Final clause is allows us to understand the purpose of a thing, it's essential qualities and nature.

Hope this clears it up for you a little.

Answer 3

it is an extremely no longer ordinary argument, although this is horribly incorrect. enable's take an analogy right here: enable's say which you're in seek of a taxi cab. What are the percentages which you would be sitting in an extremely specific taxi cab, enable's think of #51G34 (anticipate it exists and that's obtainable so which you would be able to be driving in it)? it is fantastically low odds given the plans of people probably driving in it and that the taxi won't get to you before yet another taxi selections you up. Now, enable's think of you're in taxi cab #51G34 stunning now. what's the probability now? a hundred%: it befell. The probability that we could exist in a habitat that produces oxygen this is mandatory for our survival is a hundred%: it befell, this is the only way it could have befell. so which you may desire to be careful of people attempting to declare "What are the percentages??? There could desire to be a God."

Answer 4

the teleological argument tries to expalian the existence of a god through purpose. " telos" is from a greek woord meaning "end". but i advise you to read a book written by Richard Dawkings recently called "THE GOD DELUSION"

Answer 5

Also called the argument from design, it goes like this.

1. X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.

2. Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.

3. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.

4. Therefore, God exists.

(thank you, Wikipedia)

The purpose, clearly, is to prove God exists.

The flaw, clearly, is that the argument begs the question by assuming God's existence in step 3.

Answer 6

Hmm...the arguement is also flawed in that #1 is opinion, not fact, and opinion cannot be proven. Unfortunately it often seems that the type of people that use these kinds of arguements have a hard time distinguishing opinion from fact.