Changes

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes.  Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them.  These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.  However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes.  Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them.  These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.  However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere [[demiurge]], not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common.  Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply. However, such a response would refute itself, for how could something simple create something complex, intelligently?

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common.  Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply. However, such a response would refute itself, for how could something simple create something complex, intelligently?