My Thoughts on the Teleological Argument for God's Existence

-


I was doing some Tecarta Bible reading with the KJV Study Bible. One doctrinal footnote found in Psalm 94:9 is about the teleological argument for God's existence. The word teleological should not be confused with the word theological. Teleological is derived from "telos" which means "end or purpose". Teleology is the study of the evidence of design in nature. It was said that Aristotle had been the common inventor of teleology even if he was a pagan. The Greeks were pretty much pioneers of science in the ancient world and other useful modern concepts. What does it mean to have the teleological argument for the existence of God? It would mean to prove His existence by the order and arrangement of the Universe. 

Psalm 94:9 says that He that planted the ear that formed the eye. I'm amazed at how atheistic evolutionists still insist evolution is real even with proof that the eye and ears are too complex to have come together on the basis of chaos. An evolutionist who's a theist is bound to say that God (or their gods) would've easily allowed an orderly evolution. The atheistic evolutionist is even more mind-blowing into believing that random acts of chaos created mechanisms more complicated than systems. A human eye is more complex than the most advanced camera. I find it so frustrating when someone says that the camera has a good designer yet they don't want to believe that somebody created the human eye.

This reminds me again of the time I first read the late D. James Kennedy's book "Why I Believe" and in one chapter was called "Why I Believe in Creation". Kennedy pointed out several scientific facts that can't be a product of random evolution without a creator. The study of science would really tell you how much order there is even in the fallen world. To have a teleological argument means to study science. Science provides the facts and figures of God's creation. Science is the study of provable facts. That's what Kennedy was doing in writing his book. I'm amazed at how much diligence Kennedy poured into his research to write his book yet people still want to make fun of him.

I'm also reminded of some arrogant people who are too proud to admit their need for God. These arrogant people in the scientific community say that you can't be scientific unless you reject the idea of God. Yet, some people, even evolutionists, didn't dismiss that idea. Charles Darwin came from a line of Freemasons and his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a Freemason. They love to throw attacks on the evidence presented by non-atheists with different types of mockery. They see the evidence but why do they reject it? Romans 1:21-22 has it that they know God exists but they're too arrogant. They would rather give in to their vain imaginations (like atheistic evolution). They profess themselves to be wise but they are indeed fools as they try to defy even scientific facts with their own lies. An irony that they claim to love science but defy scientific evidence that there's indeed a God. 

See also: