Quote:
Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Kang, I can see why you think this was refuted. If you read the first part of the new argument you will see it is no longer a dead issue. READ IT HERE!
|
Gasp! On the Internet? It must be true! That game goes both ways.
I see nothing really new in this, just a slight variation of the original. In fact, this very article discounts the teleological argument:
Quote:
|
In our own day, arguments from design are generally considered irrelevant, because it is believed that purely naturalistic explanations can be offered to account for the origins of the physical world. The addition of any kind of metaphysical explanation, like how the apple tree may have grown up in my back yard, is considered purely speculative, adding no objective knowledge beyond what is empirically tenable.
|
All I see that is new is
Quote:
|
Swinburne seeks a stronger version of the teleological argument which tends to bypass the co-present (spatial) regularities in favor of the successive (temporal) regularities that seem apparent in the universe.
|
And you can make the same objections to the temporal teleological argument as the spatial one.
There must be a reason that “Richard Swinburne is one of the few contemporary theistic philosophers attempting to mount a teleological argument” because “historically, there is good reason others hold their peace.”