Does the Teleology argument prove the existence of God?
@Gavvet 's post Is there a scientific basis for Jesus Christ triggered a thought I decided to write a few points in a posts. It might not be a link between science and Jesus Christ. or it just might be the link. I believe one of our most recent technological breakthroughs, just might make if very difficult to prove that God does not exist.
So what is the Teleological theory?
The content below is from Wikipedia:
So here is my opinion of what Plato said in laymen terms:
Although we do not see the order in the Universe, everything still works in perfect harmony. For example: The earth rotates around the sun, waves will wash Shells onto the beach, etc.
Lets look at the image below:
These shells was washed onto the beach in no particular order. We are used to seeing this, and we all now that it will happen again.
Let's look at the image below:
I don't think any of us will believe that these shells were washed onto the beach in this specific order. There must've been some intervention to get them into this specific order. Some intelligent form of life had to actually pick up the shells and put them into the way they are placed to spell these words.
Now here is my actual point...Let's look at every living creature on earth. We see it every day of our lives and we accept that it is there and it will be there again tomorrow. Just like the sea will wash out some seashells onto the beach, in no particular order.
But what if we look a bit deeper into all living creatures and we look at the most recent scientific discoveries, DNA...
Now if we look at DNA, what I see is structure and a lot of it. Actually the most perfect structure in the world, and this is the make-up of all living creatures.
Just like we will know that there were some intelligent actions taken to write words on the beach with the shells.
Should we not seriously consider that some higher intelligence were involved with the creation of all living creatures if you look at the detail in DNA
While a higher intelligence is a possibility, as is a simulation, it's not necessary. There's overwhelming evidence that DNA and other life processes is an effect of Evolution by Natural Selection. You could say that a higher intelligence set Natural Selection in motion, or the conditions leading up to it, but at this time, there's no evidence for that whatsoever.
I suspect if Plato was born after Darwin, he would have a vastly different outlook.
I believe that DNA is enough prove of a higher intelligence being involved in the creation. It could not have happened by accident, just like the second image of the shells. That is the beauty of the argument, for me this is the proof that we have been waiting for that there must've been a higher intelligence which set everything in motion, even Natural Selection.
But it did. There's overwhelming evidence for how DNA evolved from RNA. Here's a pretty good paper which explains clearly how DNA evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
I'm sure once you read it and all the sources, and do some more research, you'll agree that there's no need or requirement for a higher intelligence for the creation of DNA. Or for that matter, RNA.
Thanks @liberosist. let me have a read and I will provide some comments on the paper at a later stage.
@liberosist, congrats again with you latest post that trended. Well deserved. I always enjoy reading your comments and you seem to be very knowledgeable. I still wanted to ask: In what line of work are you?
An interesting thing. A lot of people do not argue that there is no God. Some of us simply argue that the God in the books of man is not it. :)
Even Elon Musk has proposed ideas I've shared with friends for some time. It might be all a simulation.
This all goes hand in hand with Deism by the way. (not Theism).
EDIT: And nothing you have proves Christ or any particular religion. It simply indicates intelligent design is plausible. It does not define that intelligent design as being Christ, being the God of Christianity, the Gods of the Native Americans, the Hindu Gods, the Egyptian Gods, the Greek Gods or anything of the sort. IF we do find proof for intelligent design that does not PROVE any particular religion. It only proves intelligent design. :) It also tells us nothing about that creator.
Thanks for the comment @dwinblood. And nice to meet you. I just followed you by the way. I fully agree with you that if we are able to proof intelligent design (which I still believe was proven with DNA, but still need to read the paper recommended by @liberosist's) it won't tell us anything about that creator. What it will do however is proof that there is a creator. Do you agree with this?
Yep. I am an atheist / deist... I keep saying that but no one has taken the bait for that contradiction.
Those are two things I can't prove... so I believe they are equally possible:
Either there has never been a state of nothingness.
or
There was nothing, and now there is something.
If the first is true then Atheism without a God works fine. We presume that there was a state of nothingness. Yet that may not be the case.
If the second is true then something had to start it, whether it was pushing a button on a computer simulation and walking away, or getting more directly involved. That would imply creation or some form of catalyzing event. It does not indicate a superior being. For all we know every time we fire up the Large Hadron Collider we may be causing a big bang event somewhere in a parallel universe (multi-verse/brane theory) in which case WE would be the creators of that universe without realizing it.
I do not think it is likely I'll ever be able to answer those two simple questions... thus, I am an atheist / deist. :P
So aren't you then Agnostic?
Haha. Right on queue. I was expecting that.
Not exactly. Agnostics still leave the possibility of written religions of man as being the truth. I honestly think all of those are fairy tales and kind of silly.
I believe either there is NO CREATION event and reality and the laws that make it up is part of an infinite cycle that has always existed (ATHEISM).
or
I believe that there was something and some catalyzing even caused the start of our current cycle. That something is the "creator" even if it was an accident. (Deism)
The common ground for both of these and why I can be equally comfortable in either state is the idea of REASON.
There was no creator, now use reason to live and view the world around you.
There was a creator, now use reason to live and view the world around you.
It ultimately comes down to a thought problem. It is a fun ultimate question to ponder, but ultimately the answer is unimportant to how I actually live my life. I still use reason and observer that around me. Whether a button was pushed at sometime in the past is ultimately irrelevant TO ME.
So I don't quite fit with agnosticism... though it'd somewhat close.
I've spent a lot of time researching various religions on www.religioustolerance.org I didn't even know about Deism until a decade or so ago when I stumbled upon it on that website. It's been around for a long time, and some prominent thinkers considered themselves as such, yet I'd never heard of it.
I am a Christian myself, but fully believe everybody have the right to their own opinion. I really enjoy these kind of discussions. I read your part 2 post where you mentioned that you do not need to be saved by a human, so I am not going there. I do however believe ad hope that you will experience the power of God during your life and that it will be a wonderful experience when this happens. Good luck going forward and hope to chat with you again.
Nice chatting to you @dwinblood.
The existence of higher intelligence is a possibility yet certainly not needed to explain the existence of DNA or even live. The only phenomenon that we observe that actually requires an impact from something or someone outside our world is MOTION. Any moving object, be it a star or an atom needs to be put in motion by force and can´t start moving on it´s own. Therefore, when the first object in our universe started to move, the impetus needed to come from somewhere "outside". This is my understanding of the kinetic argument proposed by Thomas d´Aquin.
Thanks @shaka, I have never read anything from Thomas d´Aquin, but from your summary I agree that something needed to come from outside to set everything in motion. I will read a bit more on this and comment again at a later stage.
That's the spirit! Thomas Aquinas argues logically and irrefutably that there must be a prime mover in order to get the first motions going. Dig in!
Lol, thanks for the comment on a very old post:) I am still reading about this and love the subject :)
Keep up the great work @jacor
Upvoted
Keep up the great work @jacor
Upvoted
What about the intelligence that washed Shells onto the beach?
The shells didn't get there on their own or did they?
Some of my ideas / thoughts / research
https://steemit.com/jesus/@virtualgrowth/ideas-and-thoughts-on-of-jesus-christ-metaphor-symbolism-to-read-and-or-discuss
Keep up the great work @jacor
Upvoted
Keep up the great work @jacor
Upvoted
Upvoted