Below is my paper which is an argument against the Teleological Argument for the existence of god from Paley.

The Teleological Argument’s first premise lists several similarities between naturally existing things and a man made watch. Through conversations in class, additional reading, and extensive thought, I have not been able to find a way that naturally occurring and man made creations are obviously analogous. The place where I find the most weakness in the analogy is in Paley’s human perspective. It weakens his argument that he understands creation, and that he knows with absolute certainty that the watch had an intelligent designer. To truly understand creation on the scale that would be required to draw up an analogy between a watch and a human would necessitate an absolute abstraction from the inherent human understanding of creation. It is my opinion that no human being can have this perspective, seeing that historically we have always been creators ourselves. As such, we will always have a natural bias toward thinking that there is a grand creator. Since no human being can have an objective perspective on creation, Paley’s first premise does not illustrate an analogy adequate for use in this argument.

My professor says this is no good. And here I will write what he says, and then refute it. He uses the same form as Paley does in the Teleological argument.

Suppose the analogy were between a watch and a mysterious object we discovered that looks like a watch, let's call it a swatch.

• A watch and a swatch both have (lots of stuff in common)
• A watch has a designer creator
  

-------------------------------------------------

• A swatch has a designer creator
  

Should this argument not be allowed because as you say 'no human can have an objective perspective on creation?' This doesn't seem like a good reason for disallowing arguments of this type.

I'd say no, this argument shouldn't be allowed between something we're known to have created and something we have no reason to believe we've created. If the swatch had attributes that would lead us to believe that human beings indeed created it, then it would be safe to use this argument; though the argument would be trivial then.

I might have to clarify my paper to say 'no human can have an objective perspective on the creation of things we are not known or thought to have created'. Namely ourselves. Because we create is not a good reason to assume that we have a creator. Even though my professor says that "... giving a suggestion for where a view might have come from (if not from the truth of it) does not refute it of course." Which I agree wholeheartedly with. I guess I should reword that too. I have no data illustrating why we should believe there is a creator. If the evidence that I should consider are the religions of the world, they make far more sense as social devices then they do as explanations for our existence. No one gets rich off of thinking there is a God. You do get rich from organizing the people of the world to behave in certain ways using fear (hell) and reward (heaven) as well as a code of conduct that creates a system which maximizes the architect's comfort and success. The people work for you. They go to war for you. They bring you up when you fall down. And they think that they're doing the work of god, and that ultimately that will lead to their salvation. But they're just doing the work of another lowly human.

Prior religions also help in refuting the validity of religions that have followed them. People closer to our "creation", our ancient ancestors believed in many deities. Yet as we move forward we solidify them into one God? Is this some sort of evolution of understanding? I don't think so. It seems like one marketing tool overwhelming another. One system having more social pull than another.

So to me, there is no other valid evidence for creation. Yet there is an obvious desire to assume that there is a creator. That is our believing that we create, so we must have been created.

--_-

[+] Comment (Premise) by Nathan @ 10/28/05 11:23:04 AM {0}
1. Everything we've seen that looks designed has a designer. (Axiom)
2. The Universe looks like it has been designed. (Axiom)
3. Therefore the Universe must have a designer. (From 2 & 3)
4. This designer is God.
[reply]

Name:   Url: Subject:	C:

[+] Comment () by Elijah @ 10/28/05 11:33:27 AM {0}
I basically agree with you (and I'm sure the professor does too, and is simply trying to press the point). I would not say that we have *no reason* to believe the swatch is created. Our reasons are that the swatch has similarities with the watch. This alone, however, does not *necessitate* that they both have creators, unless it can be shown that all things that have certain characteristics necessarily have a creator.

As for the issue of human perspective. There is something to this. I don't think I would have phrased it like you have, but the basic idea seems right. I also think that it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that the *only* reason we know a watch has a creator is because we have some experience of the creation of watches (seeing a watch created, actually creating one, visiting a repair shop, or simply by word of mouth). Someone who has no experience with watches may very well think it is natural. This may seem unbelievable at first, but lets instead imagine something simpler, like a glass bottle. Perhaps you've seen the video where an african tribe (this is acted out, not real) finds a glass bottle and don't know what it is or where it comes from. I don't exactly know where I'm going with this, and I've written too much already. But it is something to consider.

I would maybe leave out the 'getting rich' part. It may be true, but its a cheap shot and doesn't really help you're argument (attack the idea, not the person).
[reply]

Name:   Url: Subject:	C:

[+] Comment () by Mikey G @ 10/28/05 04:55:12 PM {0}
Elijah,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree, the 'getting rich' part is a cheap shot, and I think I'm going to reword it. I also like what you said about knowing the watch had a creator. Information is so readily available in today's world that I'm hard pressed to find a man made thing that I don't know is man made. It blurs the line a bit and makes me feel like a watch is inherently man made. Versus say a squirrel which I know not to have been created by man. (or do I?)
[reply]

Name:   Url: Subject:	C:

Name:   Url: Subject:

C:

[comment]