A Unique Problem for the Teleological Argument

[boatsnguitars]

Premise 1: The Teleological Argument posits that the complexity and order observed in nature, especially in biological and cosmic phenomena, suggest purpose and design.

Premise 2: Human intelligence and perception are inherently limited. Our understanding is constrained by our cognitive abilities and the capacity to perceive and comprehend the intricacies of the universe.

Premise 3: The perception and appreciation of design in nature are contingent upon the limitations of human intelligence. Humans can only grasp and interpret a fraction of the complexity in the universe.

Premise 4: If humans were omniscient, possessing complete and infinite knowledge, there would be no need for perception and appreciation of design in nature, as they would understand all aspects of the universe with perfect clarity.

Premise 5: The perception of design in nature arises from moments of affirmation based on limited knowledge and understanding.

Conclusion: The Teleological Argument's reliance on the perception of design in nature as evidence for purpose and design is fundamentally flawed. This perception is a consequence of human limitations in intelligence and perception. If humans were omniscient, the need for perceiving design would vanish. Therefore, the argument's reliance on the perceived intricacy and beauty of nature is contingent upon human cognitive constraints and is not a strong basis for establishing the existence of a purposeful designer.

Imagine a perfect sphere. To us that would seem mind-blowingly complex and impossible - for a God, it would be yet another of an infinite number of things it could thing about, create, and fully understand - there would be no mystery or suspense. It would think, "Of course it's a perfect sphere. That's what can exist when you are omniscient and omnipotent. All things can. There is no curiosity, as I know everything. I can't even surprise myself by thinking of things that are things I can't consider. I already know everything. Whether I recognize it as a design or not, it is all simply "This."

And, so, that sums up why the argument against Paleys Watchmaker is so damning. It's a watch on a beach of watches, in a universe of watches, in a cosmos and beyond made up of watches. There is nothing but design. There is no randomness, or uncertainty to compare to the endless parade of watches. We would know it's designed, but at the same time, it would be completely unimportant to recognize it, since what else would it be? We'd already know it's all designed.

Yet, we aren't that. So it's - again - a theological leap to assign design to the universe. Just because it "appears designed" (it doesn't) doesn't mean it is - it means we have 200-300 IQ (max) and not 1,000,000,000 IQ or more - and, here's the kicker:

If we were Omniscient, we might very well realize - "Oh, it really isn't designed."

[Tcg]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.