Outline, and then critically discuss, one of the following arguments for the existence of God: a)      ontological argument b)      cosmological argument c)      teleological argument.

There are claims that religious belief is irrational and that there is no evidence to support the belief in God. There are three general arguments for the existence of God that attempt to counter the charge of irrationality.

The teleological argument for the existence of God is also called the argument to design. It is an inductive argument calling on the empirical world as evidence for the existence of God.

The argument uses the analogy of human design such as houses or watches to justify that the complex biological ‘machines’ of creatures and the complexity of our universe could only come about by design. Through this complexity is a uniformity of purpose that could not have come about by accident, or entirely by evolution.

That there is an observed order to this complexity is deemed evidence that it is like this because God has made it like this. The inference is that there is a designer of this designed world and that this designer is God.

The argument only really stands if counter examples from the empirical world cannot be found. Belief-in God logically depends upon a belief-that the world is designed by God. A uniformity of purpose for the universe can be given counter-examples such as conflict in the Natural world of predation, disease and famine and ultimately death.

A perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God would not have designed a universe with such obvious defects. Unless by some higher order the defects given as counter examples by finite beings such as ourselves are held not to be defects at all.

The analogies used between human designed machines and examples of the world as complex machines that must have been designed, depend upon the similarities being close. The selection of the metaphor of the world as a machine shows selective bias. The Gaia theory, although portraying the world as a self- sustaining mechanism, also describes the world as a living organism. Although this could be used as a description of a machine that had to have been designed, Lovelock did not intend it this way. It is more a theory derived from evolutionary biology than a teleological argument. The metaphor of a machine leads to the characteristic of design. But alternative metaphors such as Gaia can also come from evolutionary characteristics.

Taking Paley’s example of a watch found on a desert island, evolutionary biologists counter with what could be called the ‘blind watchmaker’ to explain the world from another analogy. By selection of the organisms more able to survive conditions a natural ‘design’ has been fashioned. It depends upon organisms adapting through survival to procreative stages whilst less able organisms do not. Throughout the geological history of the planet there have come evidence of evolutionary dead-ends that support the argument. These can be held to be counter-examples of the teleological argument.

The complexity and apparent uniformity of the universe cannot infer the existence, nor the characteristics of God.

If the world was somehow designed, then can the inference be made that the designer was the ultimate Designer? The world could have been designed by a higher being. However that does not mean that the designer has the Divine characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence or perfection. The designer does not have to be God in a Judeo-Christian sense.

This leads to infinite questions of who designs the designer. The argument degenerates into Reductio ad Absurdum.

To stop Reductio ad Absurdum arguments that effectively prevent explanations of anything, William of Occam devised a restriction to explanations, now called Occam’s razor. All explanations of events should be restricted to sufficient conditions that explain the event. This prevents explaining the conditions. This principle of economy rejects teleological argument because it adds nothing to the sufficient conditions of the existence of the world.  The sufficient conditions do not need explanations of a non-empirically based ‘prime mover’.

Another characteristic of God is perfection. A perfect God would design a perfectly designed universe.nbsp; Man has questioned the perfection of design. The apparent imperfections of disease, death and evolutionary dead-ends counter the evidence of perfection.

A more up-to-date version of the teleological argument is the Fine Tuning Argument. This holds that the physical constants of the universe have been fine tuned from all possible values so that they could be compatible with sentient life.

It is questionable whether the values could have been anything else. If the constants had changed in any way then sentient life may well evolve in a manner we cannot conceive of.

If the universe is designed then man cannot give an example of a non-designed universe and visa versa. There is no way of distinguishing between the two. This holds for the basic teleological argument or the fine-tuning argument.

Like all inductive arguments there can be no discernable, perceived link between the ‘cause’ of God and the ‘effect’ of the universe.

The charge of irrationality has not been rebutted by the teleological argument. Any supposed evidence to support the existence of God can just as easily support His non-existence as alternative analogies are found. Belief in God is still a matter of faith and not of evidence and deduction. To reduce religious belief in God to factual beliefs, and arguments that support empirical evidence lose the belief’s intensity.

Course notes.

The Philosophers’ Magazine, Issue Eight, autumn 1999. Article ‘Is there a personal God?’.