What are the best arguments against teleological and cosmological as evidence of the existence of god.?

Question

I was recently accused as making such arguements and so I looked it up it seemed sound to me so I want to try find out how and why it is weak as an arguement.
links would be appreciated.
Thanks.

Answer 1

The teleological argument basically suggests that perceived order and complexity cannot be accidental. This is a poor argument for at least three reasons.

The first is that humans have a well-known tendancy to see patterns that we KNOW were not intentionally put there. We have probably all heard of the 'man in the moon' or seen clouds that resemble other things. Does seeing a cloud that looks like an elephant mean that someone is shaping the cloud to look that way? Of course not.

The second is that we know complexity can arise by chance and we have many, many examples of things that once seems 'too complex' but have sence been proven otherwise. Aquinas, for example, suggested that because plants turn their leaves toward the sun it proves an intelligence is telling them where the sun is... but know we understand feedback mechanisms can drive such behaviour and no intelligence is required. Likewise, the evolution of the human eye used to be cited by teleologists as impossible but a mechanism for its development has since been very well worked out. We should know by now that not understanding how a particular complex event came to be doesn't mean it's impossible!

The third reason is that there are just so many things that can be found that are actually very poorly designed. If some grand architect built everything, then any ecologist, biologist, physician can give you examples of things we might have made better. Take the human spine, for example - constantly prone to stress and break-downs, yet so critically placed that repair is almost impossible.

The cosmological argument is even more egregiously flawed. It assumes both the everything has to have a cause (like the universe) and that not everything has to have a cause (like a god). It assumes some things are necessary and that other things are not. And none of these assumptions can be very solidly backed up... or at least you will find proving them to a skeptic almost impossible. So as a form of argumentation, it is only good for someone who already agrees with all your premises.

That's my take anyway, for what it's worth. Hope that helps!

Answer 2

Such things cannot be agued FOR. The Franciscan Wm. of Ockham said there is no theological arguement for, nor scientific proof of, God's existence, and that belief in his existence must be taken entirely on faith.
This is still true today.
Any arguement, ANY ARGUEMENT, trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is futile.
I am an atheist.

Answer 3

Since the existence of a contigent reality cannot be accounted for by reference to another contigent reality as its ultimate explanation and the intelligibility of the universe must be assumed in any field of inquiry, and therefore directs us to a source for that intelligibility, teleological and cosmological arguments remain valid in terms of human inquiry into the question of God's existence. These arguments in no way provide definitive proof, but they enable people to think through the question in a rational way. As far as the efficacy of such so called "proofs"-- consider the work of John Henry Newman in his "Grammar of Assent". In this book he details how most folks come to judgements in regards to not only cosmological and teleological claims, but empirical claims as well. Another good text in regards to the strength and weakness of teleological and cosmological claims is Mortimer Adler's "How to Think About God." None of these claims in themselves provides a necessary "proof" for the existence of God, but they do provide a means of thinking about the question and making a prudential judgement in regards to an answer.