The above errors were caused by the plugin:tcm_polloutput
The above errors were caused by the plugin:tcm_pollinput
The above errors were caused by the plugin:asv_amazon
Skeptical Christian: The Teleological Argument (my paper)

The Teleological Argument (my paper)

28 April 2008

Just wanted to update readers on a new addition to the website. I uploaded a paper that I wrote on the Teleological Argument for my philosophy of religions class. I have been working on a huge article providing a detailed defense of this argument for almost a year now, and with any luck that will be completed relatively soon. However, the paper provides a fairly extensive overview of the Teleological Arguments. Unfortunately, I vastly exceeded the page limit for the paper (with my professor’s permission), but I did not wish to make the paper any longer. Thus, some points were not as developed as I would have liked. In any case, you can get the paper here.

  1. Your arguments against the validity of the anthropic principle are quite lacking. You don’t even make an attempt to diffuse the anthropic principle with logic; instead you cite John Leslie’s analogy as if it solves the matter, then you reassert your conclusion in one sentence at the end of your essay. That analogy doesn’t work simply because the life whose existence is called into question already existed before the prohibiting factors (firing squad). Indeed, the existence of this life is requisite in the existence of the marksmen themselves, whereas, in reality, you are trying to argue that ‘fine tuning’ makes intelligent life improbable. The analogy simply doesn’t do your arguments any good. The Anthropic principle, frankly, renders the idea of fine tuning as a prohibiting factor for intelligent life absurd. Physics don’t revolve around the needs of beings, beings evolved to the conditions presented by physical laws.


    — Kip    Jun 17, 08:19 AM    #

  2. Teleology is interesting.

    Why did God design human beings so that some would have dark skin and some would have light skin?

    Evolutionists claim this is simply an adaptation caused by living in certain climates for a certain length of time.

    However, the picture changes if you consider the teleology.

    Dark skin has the goal of enabling people to live in Africa.

    Light skin has the goal of enabling people to live in America.

    The skin of people was designed so that they could live in certain climates.

    Living in other climates is directly contradicting the ‘teleos’ of God’s designs.

    As always ,the Bible is ahead of us here and Acts 17:26 reminds us that God determines where people should live.

    From a telelogical point of view, black people were designed to live in Africa, not America.

    Teleology is inherently racist, which is why Christianity came so easily to the supporters of apartheid.


    — Steven Carr    Jul 29, 05:20 PM    #

  3. Excellent paper, Kyle. I intend to do a paper on the same topic later this semester, and hopefully my professor will set a higher maximum page limit.

    Kip’s criticisms fail to even remotely address the problem posed by Leslie’s analogy. He simply misses the point of analogies in general, really. What is salient in both is that one has a scenario in which a subject finds himself in a significant situation that is vastly at odds with probability. One could theoretically explain this in three fashions. First, there is always physical necessity: perhaps the marksmen’s rifles were fixed to stands such that they invariably aimed at the ground. Second, there’s always sheer chance, but excessive probabilities render this suspect. And, third, intent: the marksmen chose to miss, whatever their motive in so doing. What clearly does not pass muster here is for the individual to simply shrug and ignore the improbability on the grounds that he would not otherwise have such a vision. (Our scenario is unchanged if the individual was not conscious prior to the shots; and, of course, Kip’s remark that there would be no marksmen without a subject upon whom to fire is quite beside the point.) You got it exactly right, Kyle, in pointing out that while one may rightly expect to not see a life-prohibiting universe around us, one may not rightly expect to see a life-permitting universe, at least without either recourse to necessity or teleology.

    And, as usual, Carr is clueless and suffers from an excessive willingness to dash to and fro across the Internet in a quest to annoy his betters.


    — JB    Aug 29, 08:17 AM    #

  4. I’d like to cite your paper on an apologetics website I am designing as a final project for a class. Unfortunately, I can’t find enough information to do so. The project is due in a few weeks, and I plan to publish as soon as I can after that. I will link to your website until I can give a better citation, but I would like the necessary information to give you proper credit.


    — Sean    Nov 20, 01:35 AM    #

your_ip_is_blacklisted_by sbl.spamhaus.org