Notes for 9/8/2026

 9/8/2026
Do you think the existence of beauty is a reason to believe in God?

[Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")
Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:50 in CAS 436.]
 
Teleological arguments
The Design argument

Teleological = having to do with purpose (purposive)




Analogical design argument



William Paley

Functional complexity (FC): complex structure together with a function performed in virtue of that structure that would not otherwise be possible.

 
1. Both artifacts (e.g., a watch) and organic objects (e.g., an eye) exhibit FC.
2. Artifacts have FC in virtue of being designed.
3. Similar effects have similar causes. 
4. Therefore, organic objects were designed.
5. If organic objects were designed, then God designed them.
6. If God designed them, then God exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
 
3*. It is reasonable to infer that similar effects have similar causes if we have no better alternative explanation for the similar effect.


3.5*. We have no better alternative explanation for the FC of living structures other than design.







Some possible explanations:

E1: Supernatural design
E2: Spontaneous natural production
E3: Evolutionary production through natural selection (and other mechanisms)
Does God really provide a better explanation for FC than chance?
 
Naturalism: Only natural processes (especially laws of physics and biology and chemistry) explain what can be found in the world.

Supernaturalism: Some non-natural agency (God) best explains some of what can be found in the world.



What, exactly, makes one explanation BETTER than another?


Consider:
Where did the universe come from?

E1: It spontaneously popped into existence from nothing.
E2: It was popped into existence by God.



 
What, exactly, is an explanation?



An explanation consists of 2 parts:

-    The explanandum = that which is to be explained.
-    The explanans = that which does the explaining.

The explanans has to be different from the explanandum.

 
Example: 
‘Explain motion.’ 
‘Motion is what happens when something moves.’
v.s.
‘Motion is when a single object changes from one location at one time to a different location at a later time, (passing through intervening the space during the interval’).

The goal of an explanation is to produce better understanding after the explanandum has been replaced by the explanans.
So: Does God really explain FC?
How, exactly?

 
Here’s the argument again:
1. Both artifacts (e.g., a watch) and organic objects (e.g., an eye) exhibit FC.
2. Artifacts have FC in virtue of being designed.
3. Similar effects have similar causes. 
4. Therefore, organic objects were designed.
5. If organic objects were designed, then God designed them.
6. If God designed them, then God exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.




Consider premise 5.
David Hume complains that the design argument violates the principle that: Posited causes can only be justified to the extent that they are necessary to account for the effect.

So, can we infer God (with all traditional attributes) rather than some ‘lesser god’?