Certainly the teleological argument for the existence of God is an argument from design! The theme of the argument is God's intention (to create). The teleological argument therefore is anthropomorphic. Immanuel Can believes in an anthropomorphic version of God, and is fundamentally unable to see any other interpretation of God.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:52 pmThat depends on what you mean by "teleological argument."
If you mean that an "end" or "outcome" (telos) has to be implied, it isn't. The design argument follows the pattern of argument-to-the-best-explanation. In that, it's different from the mathematical argument, which is deductive. But no particular "telos" is required to advance it.
Our first conclusion was that there must be an uncaused First Cause.
Our second argument is probabilistic: is it more likely to be an intelligent uncaused First Cause, or a unintelligent uncaused First Cause?
And here's where the various design arguments come online. Design is detectable from features of the designed, such as irreducible complexity, specification, and function. And wherever we have established that design exists, an unintelligent cause, or mere chance, becomes an overwhelmingly improbable hypothesis. So were are drawn, by argument-to-the-the-best-explanation of the data, to the far more probable hypothesis of design...and a Designer as the First Cause.
Now, I had asked what you considered a best hypothesis, and you suggested Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Okay. Then I double-checked to see if you had any hypothesis involving an unintelligent First Cause, and it seems you didn't. So I was preparing to move on to the question of the identity and nature of this First Cause...but perhaps we're now going back to that, and suggesting that maybe that there is some kind of quantum state that accounts for the origin of the universe...is that correct?
Moreover, Immanuel Can shies away from the immanence of God, as IC is a creationist. Anyone who believes in 'irreducible complexity" is a creationist.