Catholic/theistic defense of the teleological argument?

[Balaco]

A Catholic presented this argument to me as one of the “major” arguments for God. He copy/pasted what a theistic video had to say about it.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

Through my research so far, I’ve found that this doesn’t necessarily point to God.

Objectively speaking, unlikely events, such as our existence, don’t necessarily point to God. Even though some parts of the universe are precise…even if a small percent difference would’ve stopped us from existing, it’s not impossible these things could’ve happened on their own.

Human existence didn’t have to happen, but it did. It ended up being the event that happened out of the many that were possible.

A simple analogy I’ve found involves the roll of a die 1000 times over. Every last combination of the numbers produced by the die is equally as likely; equally as unlikely. The order being something like “2, 4, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1” or just “2” over and over is extremely unlikely, but just as extremely unlikely as any other outcome. It just so happened that, out of all the possible outcomes, that one occurred.

I’ve also seen the lottery or disorders being used as analogies. There are billions of people in the world, each as unlikely to win the lottery or be born with a rare disorder, but it happens.

Of course, human existence is (probably) much more complex than rolling a die or winning the lottery in a sense. Though if we look at it without immediately assuming that we had to or have to exist, the analogies remain relevant. For all we know, that small percent change in the elements would’ve led to the existence of radically different beings, rather than us humans.

Some people have even claimed that it could also be possible that the odds of us existing were 100% (without God existing)…but our knowledge is currently too limited to comprehend this. There could be a branch of physics/science that explains this, but we haven’t learned it yet…or our incomplete human minds are overthinking things. These last points here aren’t exactly provable so I’m not necessarily defending them past their possibility.

What is the Catholic/theistic defense of these claims?

 

[dshix]

The teleological argument is not intended as an absolute proof of God. You yourself have identified that quite clearly.

Rather, it proves that God is highly likely to exist, which also supports the fact that atheists are putting a great deal of faith in the tiny sliver of a chance that God doesn’t exist.

 

[Wesrock]

The teleological argument presented above is also not Aquinas’ Fifth Way, also often called the teleological argument. What is presented above is an I tell I gently design argument, not entirely useless, but it wont convince skeptics. I just wanted to be sure people don’t confuse it with the Fifth Way.

 

[hasantas]

A Catholic presented this argument to me as one of the “major” arguments for God. He copy/pasted what a theistic video had to say about it.

Through my research so far, I’ve found that this doesn’t necessarily point to God.

Objectively speaking, unlikely events, such as our existence, don’t necessarily point to God. Even though some parts of the universe are precise…even if a small percent difference would’ve stopped us from existing, it’s not impossible these things could’ve happened on their own.

Human existence didn’t have to happen, but it did. It ended up being the event that happened out of the many that were possible.

A simple analogy I’ve found involves the roll of a die 1000 times over. Every last combination of the numbers produced by the die is equally as likely; equally as unlikely. The order being something like “2, 4, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1” or just “2” over and over is extremely unlikely, but just as extremely unlikely as any other outcome. It just so happened that, out of all the possible outcomes, that one occurred.

I’ve also seen the lottery or disorders being used as analogies. There are billions of people in the world, each as unlikely to win the lottery or be born with a rare disorder, but it happens.

Of course, human existence is (probably) much more complex than rolling a die or winning the lottery in a sense. Though if we look at it without immediately assuming that we had to or have to exist, the analogies remain relevant. For all we know, that small percent change in the elements would’ve led to the existence of radically different beings, rather than us humans.

Some people have even claimed that it could also be possible that the odds of us existing were 100% (without God existing)…but our knowledge is currently too limited to comprehend this. There could be a branch of physics/science that explains this, but we haven’t learned it yet…or our incomplete human minds are overthinking things. These last points here aren’t exactly provable so I’m not necessarily defending them past their possibility.

What is the Catholic/theistic defense of these claims?

Every thing and actions in universe point God. That argument is one of them.

There is always a way to not believe in God. That is for sake of exam. For instance let’s assume a very big castle which have 10000000000000… doors. Most of doors are open but some of them ( one or two) are closed. Now we think two men who look at doors. One of them see the open doors and other regard and focus on closed door.

Is castle open or closed? Do anyone can get into that castle or not?

 

[Balaco]

Rather, it proves that God is highly likely to exist, which also supports the fact that atheists are putting a great deal of faith in the tiny sliver of a chance that God doesn’t exist.

Can you elaborate on these points?

Of course, if God exists that easily answers why we exist, and in a sense puts our existence at a 100% possibility rather than a small percent.

Though there still remains the possibility that the world simply could’ve/would’ve ended up radically different (possibly without us). From what I’ve read, theists feel like atheists have to place a lot of faith in the fact that we ended up existing only by chance. Yet I feel like these theists aren’t really focusing on how it could very well be possible that humans could have come to exist without God…since God’s existence easily asks that.

I suppose other arguments for God’s existence may reinforce the confidence in theists, which strengthens the validity of the teleological argument for them.