|
|
|
|
|
Arguments for the Existence of God: The Rational Arguments (06)
|
|
|
Paul Jang
|
2008-03-04 21:33:58, hit : 4,207 |
|
|
The Teleological Argument
This argument is the a posteriori argument, which proves the existence of God by the method of seeking the "cause of purpose" inferring from the traits of the world (universe). This is often called the argument from "a designer." This is also a causal argument.
The teleological argument for the existence of God begins with the apparent design in the world. It argues that this apparent design is an evidence of an intelligent Architect, a Designer of the world (universe).
In other words, there he discovers a conscious, intelligent, and designing Mind in the order and harmony of the world, who is an intelligent and purposeful Designer.
This argument, Shedd says, must not be within the material world at the cosmological argument, but spread out to the intellectual world, and even in the order, there is no relationship of cause and effect (Shedd, 1889, 246).
Dr. Park defined this to distinguish and explain the "emotional argument" which proves the existence of God by seeking the order and the purpose of harmony of the universe, and the "designing argument" which proves God's existence by seeking the particular adaptability of nature and the purpose of planning (Park, 1971, 40-44).
Strong states this teleological argument into two kinds of premises: the major premise and the minor premise.
The major premise, he says, expresses a primitive conviction (Strong, 1985, 75). The major premise is intimated in Ps. 94:9: "He who planted the ear, does he not hear? And who formed the eye, does He not see?" He explains the teleological argument as follows:
(a) that order and useful collocation may exist without being purposed--for we are compelled by our very mental constitution to deny this in all cases where the order and collocation pervade a system: (b) that order and useful collocation may result from the mere operation of physical forces and laws--for these very forces and laws imply, instead of excluding, an originating and superintending intelligence and will. (Strong, 1985, 75)
The minor premise expresses a working-principle of all sciences, namely, that all things have their uses, that order pervades the universe, and that the methods of nature are rational methods... He explains to continue:
(a) That we frequently misunderstand the end actually subserved by nature events and objects; for the principle is, not that we necessarily know the actual end, but that we necessarily believe that there is some end, in every case of systematic order and collocation, (b) That the order of the universe is manifestly imperfect; for this, if granted, would argue, not absence of contrivance, but some special reason for imperfection, either in the limitations of the contriving intelligence itself, or in the nature of the end sought. (Strong, 1985, 77)
Hodge suggests the teleological argument for the existence of God with the boundless subject with the evidences of design in the world: design in single organs, design in the relation of one organ to another organ, design for the adaptation of the organs to the instinct of animals, design for provision, design of the vegetable organs, design of nature, design of all living creatures on the earth with organic relations, design of man with the earth, and design for cosmical arrangements (Hodge, 1973, 217-226).
And Paley explains the God of ontological argument in comparison to the watchmaker, and Cleanthes with the greater machine maker (Burrill, ed., 1967, 165-176).
Especially, Cleanthes agrees with the teleological argument. He systemizes his theory as follows: All design implies a designer. Great design implies a great designer. There is great design in the world. Therefore, there must be a great Designer of the world (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, 95).
William Lane Craig agrees with the teleological argument that cosmic considerations have breathed new life into the argument from design (Craig, 1984, 73).
Leslie Orgel agreed to the use of the biological consideration for the teleological argument: that living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity (Orgel, 1973, 189).
Paley agreed to the teleological argument with his principle reinstated from the correlationship between complexity and specificity. He reinstated this as this: Living cells are characterized by their specified complexity. A written language has specified complexity. Uniform experience informs us that only intelligence is capable of regularly producing specified complexity. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that living organisms were produced by intelligence (Yorkey, 1981, 13-31).
Paley also accepted the Humean principle and used it for the argument in his "Natural Theology" as follows: "Whenever we see marks of contrivance we are led for its cause to an intelligent author...We see intelligence constantly contriving; that is, we see intelligence constantly producing effects, marked and distinguished by certain properties...We wish to account for their origin. Our experience suggests a cause perfectly adequate to this account...because it agrees with that which in all cases is the foundation of knowledge--the undeviating course of their experience. (Paley, 1824, 37)
But this argument also cannot totally be accepted because the purely naturalistic explanations of the origin of life have been demonstrated to be implausible.
.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Theology 