Changes

# Therefore, God exists.

# Therefore, God exists.

===Objections to the teleological argument===

===Comments on the teleological argument===

'''Regarding the first and second premise''' -- The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is an example of non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”. This implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. In reality a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.

'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

'''Regarding the third premise''' -- Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, 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 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.

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.

 

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.

==Anthropological argument==

==Anthropological argument==