The Teleological Argument: A Higher Source Of God
The Teleological Argument is the argument from a design stand point. The argument implies that a higher source of intelligence had to come up with the design in which the universe came into existence. McCloskey come up with numerous reason against this argument that suggest the Teleological Argument is not adequate in proving God exist. A design must have a designer and us as humans couldn’t create the earth ourselves even if we put all our thinking caps together, the creator of this world had to be something and someone so powerful and intelligent that it was beyond human belief. Whether he wants to call the being God or not he has to realize this isn’t something that happened on its own. So my question to him would be who was the designer if it wasn’t God? McCloskey suggests the only thing we should come to conclusion with based on the teleological argument is that there was a powerful designer (McCloskey, 1968). With this notion in my opinion, McCloskey discredits his own stance by proclaiming an awareness of nature being out of order.
…show more content…
By McCloskey concluding that there was a designer, he leaning to the fact that what we consider nature in today’s world is broken.
McCloskey goes on to make another proclamation that in order to prove the Teleological Argument irrefutable examples of design and purpose must be presented. The major issue with his assessment is the standards he sets to defend the argument is one he can’t even live up to. Based on McCloskey accusations he implies that evolution dismisses the need for a perfect designer. It is definitely not reasonable for him to require indisputable examples, when his belief in atheism does not require one. If McCloskey was to require theism to present indisputable examples, then it is only right that he provide indisputable evidence for the arguments of atheism, which can’t be
done.
Evans and Mathis provide strong evidence that a designer of the universe does exist. They proclaim that nature has several examples of design (Evans & Manis, 2009). All created entities are the products of a designer. Nature is no exemption to this rule. Since day one of mankind surveying, recording and formulating an analysis on them, the laws of nature have never changed. McCloskey is off course when he proposes the necessity of a Creator is replaced by evolution. Although the theory of evolution maybe valid, it doesn’t negate the notion God created it and directs it (Evans & Manis, 2009). Evolution still has to have a controller to make it work. I am a firm believer that nature can’t operate by itself. There has to be a higher power to set things in motion. If nature’s laws did happen by chance instead of being created by a higher source, they would not be consistent but would change often.
By McCloskey concluding that there was a designer, he leaning to the fact that what we consider nature in today’s world is broken.
McCloskey goes on to make another proclamation that in order to prove the Teleological Argument irrefutable examples of design and purpose must be presented. The major issue with his assessment is the standards he sets to defend the argument is one he can’t even live up to. Based on McCloskey accusations he implies that evolution dismisses the need for a perfect designer. It is definitely not reasonable for him to require indisputable examples, when his belief in atheism does not require one. If McCloskey was to require theism to present indisputable examples, then it is only right that he provide indisputable evidence for the arguments of atheism, which can’t be
done.
Evans and Mathis provide strong evidence that a designer of the universe does exist. They proclaim that nature has several examples of design (Evans & Manis, 2009). All created entities are the products of a designer. Nature is no exemption to this rule. Since day one of mankind surveying, recording and formulating an analysis on them, the laws of nature have never changed. McCloskey is off course when he proposes the necessity of a Creator is replaced by evolution. Although the theory of evolution maybe valid, it doesn’t negate the notion God created it and directs it (Evans & Manis, 2009). Evolution still has to have a controller to make it work. I am a firm believer that nature can’t operate by itself. There has to be a higher power to set things in motion. If nature’s laws did happen by chance instead of being created by a higher source, they would not be consistent but would change often.