Does God Exist? A Look at the Teleological Argument
Introduction
Imagine you are walking across an empty field in the countryside and you stumble on a rock. If someone asked you where that rock came from, you might say that for all you knew, it had always been there.
But what if you found a watch? Would you give the same answer? Of course not. Unlike a rock that’s been shaped by the elements, a watch has obviously been skillfully put together for a purpose. Some brilliant craftsman must be responsible.
William Paley (1743-1805) described this famous analogy of a watch in his 1802 best-seller Natural Theology; and when he did, he set the stage for the Teleological argument for the existence of God.[1]
The Teleological argument derives its name from the Greek word telos which means end, purpose, or design. It is also known as the Design argument and goes like this:
- Every design had a designer.
- The universe has highly complex design.
- Therefore, the universe had a designer.
Every design had a designer
Every painting must have a painter. In the same way, every design must have a designer. So we need to understand what design is, and how to recognize it.
Simply put, design means planning ahead for a purpose.[2] An intelligent, thinking mind must be involved.
We can recognize design through a process of elimination. If we eliminate random chance, and we eliminate natural forces like chemistry and erosion, then we are left with design.[3]
Crystals are orderly, but they form naturally through chemical bonding. No intelligence is needed. But arrowheads are different. Sand dunes are shaped by the wind. But sand castles are not. Mount Rushmore is not the product of chance or natural forces like erosion. It had a very skilled designer. Even a bird’s nest is a product of design, because its arrangement is neither due to random chance nor natural forces.
Design means a highly improbable state of affairs put together for a purpose. Chance is not a good explanation because the probability is too low to be reasonable.
The universe has highly complex design
Well, this is exactly what physicists see in the universe: a totally improbable state of affairs. And its purpose appears to be life on earth.
Starting about 50 years ago, scientists have been discovering that many characteristics of the universe, and the earth itself, appear to be very delicately balanced for the existence of life. This is called the anthropic principle.
Examples include: the atomic, electron, and proton masses; the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces; the speed of light; the expansion rate of the universe; the force of gravity; and the mass of the universe.
If any one of these values were even slightly different, then the results would be catastrophic for life of any kind. How sensitive are they? The numbers are astonishing. Let’s consider two examples.
If the force of gravity relative to the strong nuclear force were altered by just one part in 1040 then our sun would not exist.[4] If it were that much less in value, the universe would have expanded so fast there would be no galaxies, stars, or planets. If that much more, the universe would have contracted in on itself.
The cosmological constant found in Einstein’s General Relativity equation drives the expansion rate of the universe. This constant is estimated to be fine-tuned to within a staggering one part in 10120. If it were different by just this amount, the universe would literally fly apart, or collapse.[5]
Consider additional finely tuned characteristics of just the earth: location in a galaxy safe zone, circular orbit of the earth, oxygen levels, atmosphere transparency, earth-moon gravitational interaction, axis tilt of the earth, seismic activity, and many more.
Incredibly, there are well over 100 factors of the universe and the earth that are finely balanced for the existence of life.[6] The odds of this happening by chance are simply: impossible.
British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, an atheist, has said, “If we combined all the laws that must be fine-tuned, we couldn’t even write down that number in full, since it would require more zeroes than the number of elementary particles in the universe.”[7]
The experts in their own words
In fact, virtually every research astronomer alive today agrees that the universe manifests exquisite fine-tuning for life.[8] Following are comments from some of the great ones of our time.
British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, also an atheist, said, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”[9]
Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias put it this way: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”[10]
Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, summed up the situation as follows: “The anthropic principle is the most interesting next to the proof of the creation and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result.”[11]
Even Albert Einstein, in his day, wrote, “The harmony of natural law…reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”[12]
Therefore, the universe had a designer
The anthropic principle tells us that the universe cannot possibly be a result of chance. It is powerful evidence of design.
What then, does the Teleological argument tell us about the designer? The designer must be:
- Unbelievably intelligent, to produce a universe so precisely balanced for life.
- Personal. As in the case of the Cosmological argument, creation of the universe required a conscious, thinking being with the will to act.
- A single Creator. The principle of Ockham’s razor[13], along with the evidence of common design throughout life on earth, reasonably suggests one Creator.
In 1998 astronaut John Glenn, age 77, looked out the window of the Space Shuttle Discovery from orbit and remarked, “To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible.”
Isn’t that where the evidence leads?
Be sure to watch this excellent 6-minute animated video.
[1]The watch analogy in Palley’s own words can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy, accessed 7/30/20.
[2]Definition of design: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design, accessed 7/30/20.
[3]William Dembski explains this explanatory filter in his book The Design Inference.
[4]Robin Collins, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 133. Some have updated the number to be one in 1060.
[5]Dr. Jay W. Richards, “List of Fine Tuning Parameters,” Discovery Institute, 1/14/15; available at https://www.discovery.org/a/fine-tuning-parameters/; accessed 8/2/20. Hugh Ross agrees with this number in his book The Creator and the Cosmos.
[6]Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 111-121, cited in Norman Geisler Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True (Indian Trail, NC: NGIM, 2016), 31.
[7]Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford, 1989), 344, quoted in Strobel, Case for a Creator, 135,
[8]Hugh Ross, “Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity,” 12/31/01, available at https://reasons.org/explore/publications/facts-for-faith/read/facts-for-faith/2001/12/31/anthropic-principle-a-precise-plan-for-humanity; accessed 8/2/20.
[9]Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science (November 1981), 8-12; cited in Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 106-107. Emphasis mine.
[10]Quoted in Turek and Geisler, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 106. Emphasis mine.
[11]Robert Jastrow, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: An Interview with Robert Jastrow,” in Christianity Today, 26(13):15 (1982); cited in Geisler Twelve Points, 31. Emphasis mine.
[12]Albert Einstein, Ideals and Opinions—The World as I See It, 40; cited in Norman Geisler, “Anthropic Principle,” Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 2000), 27-28. Emphasis mine.
[13]Ockham’s razor is a guiding principle that says, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”