teleological argument

Question 1

Aquinas 5th way
Proposed in summa theologica

Answer 1

• Beings /natural objects do not behave spontaneously but move towards a certain goal or purpose (telos).
• However, things in the world cannot have directed themselves towards their end. they are either non-intelligent or insufficiently intelligent Such things cannot move towards an end unless directed by a being which does have intelligence. A thing cannot reliably move with a purpose unless an intelligent being had that purpose in mind and directed its behaviour.

Analogy: arrow and the archer
- An arrow hits a target even though it isn’t intelligent and cannot comprehend what it’s doing. There must be something which can comprehend the goal/end of the arrow and influenced/designed it to move in the way it does: the archer (who has intelligence) did this by shooting the arrow in a particular way while having the goal/end in mind.
Conclusion: God governs behaviour by putting natural laws in place that regulate behaviour and direct them towards the end gun has in place for them

Question 2

William paley design argument

Answer 2

• Inductive a posteriors argument premises revolve around observation of the universe used as evidence for Gods existence
• Natural objects/ beings are so intricate and complex in their purpose there must be a designer.
  Watchmaker analogy:
  If we observe a rock on the floor we’d assume it was always lying there as there’s nothing that suggests an intelligent maker if came across a watch due to its intricate design and complexity of its purpose couldn’t have come by chance assume there was an intelligent designer
  Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.” – Paley.
  E.g. a human eye has an Iris which is designed to absorb light/ create vision
  A bird has wings to fly away from preceptors
  Since complexity and purpose in a watch tells us there must have been a watch maker, similarly, the complexity and purpose in the universe tells us that there must have been a universe designer. This designer must have a mind, because design requires a designer who has a purpose in mind and know how a certain arrangement of particular parts will bring about that purpose.

Question 3

The fine-tuning argument

Answer 3

• modern version of the teleological argument
• argues that the conditions necessary for life in the universe are so precisely balanced (e.g. The strength of gravity, speed of light) that they are unlikely to have occurred by chance — and therefore the universe must have been designed by an intelligent being, often identified as God.
• Examples of fine tuning: If gravity were slightly stronger, stars would burn too quickly; if weaker, stars wouldn’t form
  Formulation
  Often expressed as a probabilistic argument:
  1. The fine-tuning of the universe for life is highly improbable.
  2. It is more likely under the hypothesis of design than chance.
  3. Therefore, the existence of a designer (God) is the best explanation.
  Critique: Multiverse Theory: If there are billions of universes, each with different constants, it’s not surprising that one would allow life.