Isn't it a little early in the week to be discussing God... anyway the counter argument goes...
* Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio)
* Therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
* Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object
* Therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
* Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
* Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
2 Comments:
Beauty like this created by chance?
Isn't it a little early in the week to be discussing God... anyway the counter argument goes...
* Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio)
* Therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
* Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object
* Therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
* Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
* Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
* Conclusion: one of the three premises is false.
Post a Comment
<< Home