Does the Teleological Argument fail?

[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.

Why would we suppose design, if we don't know everything? Sure, we can recognize design by humans, and we can recognize design by birds (nests), spiders (webs), etc. but when we look at a wave, cloud, rock or tree, why would we think it's designed?

[alexxcJRO]

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

ID people believe intelligence can be inferred from information. They point to DNA.

Belief does not entail reality. It does not mean this is the reality though, that they can.
Organized complexity is not enough to infer design.

ID people have no experiment-criteria they can apply when faced with something that has no human precedent for being designed.
You have to prove first that intelligence can be inferred from information outside human design things by finding multiple examples.

A experiment that is repeatable, predictable, testable.
You replicate the experiment using the criteria in a repeatable, predictable, testable way to prove you don’t have a one time coincidentally fluke.

Till then it’s all wishful thinking.

[Purple Knight]

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.

My objection is similar but I actually think, stronger. If everything is actually designed, on what basis can we say that we perceive design? If the teleological argument succeeds, then it fails, because it relies on getting me to admit that a watch is superior to a rock because of its beautiful and painstaking design where the rock is just rubbish, but then concludes that the rock is is equal to the watch after all, because it too, is designed.

The worst arguments for and against God, respectively, are the argument from design/order, and the argument from evil/suffering, and for the same reason: Both order and suffering are so ubiquitous that we have no basis for comparison, even theoretically. I go into it here:

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=40204

[boatsnguitars]

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.

My objection is similar but I actually think, stronger. If everything is actually designed, on what basis can we say that we perceive design? If the teleological argument succeeds, then it fails, because it relies on getting me to admit that a watch is superior to a rock because of its beautiful and painstaking design where the rock is just rubbish, but then concludes that the rock is is equal to the watch after all, because it too, is designed.

The worst arguments for and against God, respectively, are the argument from design/order, and the argument from evil/suffering, and for the same reason: Both order and suffering are so ubiquitous that we have no basis for comparison, even theoretically. I go into it here:

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=40204

As it was said by someone: Paley's watch is on a beach made of watches, with watches lapping on the shore, with the mountains of watches rising in the distance.