In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:29 pm
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Let's examine the teleological argument:By definition teleology means that there is purpose directed towards an end. One part of that end has to be organised complexity leading to (if you accept this as its end) the appearance of intelligent life.Before the nineteenth century the teleological argument might have seemed sound. But we now know that organised complexity - including intelligent life - can emerge due to the action of natural processes such as natural selection acting on genetic diversity.The problem, of course, is that there can be no purpose without intelligent guidance. If intelligence demands organised complexity then the first organised complexity which emerges must be unguided. So teleology is no help at all in seeking understanding the appearance of intelligent life nor of organised complexity.However, there is a theoretical possibility that an intelligent entity came into existence and guided the process of development. (That intelligent entity could always have existed - but if that's true the rational argument that organised complexity cannot occur spontaneously and without guidance must be denied) The problem is that the universe does not appear to have been designed specifically for humans to live in. It is far too big and it will last far too long. Also if the universe were designed for a purpose it seems odd that if the third law of thermodynamics clearly implies that the universe will eventually decay into cold, purposeless, lifelessness. Teleology is a red herring, a failed and flawed concept, which creates more problems than it solves; it is best forgotten.