The cosmological and teleological arguments don’t depend on any scriipture, or r

The cosmological and teleological arguments don’t depend on any scriipture, or revelation, or religious experience. They are supposed to be obvious to anyone with a basic level of reason and sensory experience. As such, they are not at all based on “faith” but are closer to scientific theorizing. In fact, the contemporary version of the teleological argument is usually called the “intelligent design” argument. That’s why many proponents of intelligent design think it should be taught in science classes—it’s not faith, its science. However, the teleological argument is what is called an argument from analogy—it says that if parts of one system are related to each other in a certain way, the probably parts of a similar system are related to each other in that same way. The watch example shows this. The best explanation of a watch is that someone made it, not that it just happened. The analogy says that the best explanation of the universe is that someone made it, not that it just happened. The analogy only works, however, if the universe really is like a watch—if it really is highly organized, purposeful, and shows clear evidence of design. Thinking about these issues and the readings you had for this week, post an answer to the following question and then respond critically but respectfully to at least two of your classmates: Is the universe just as obviously designed as a watch is?
As you respond to the above question in this discussion forum, here are some additional things to think about:
Is the universe just like a machine?
Is the universe always purposeful and smooth-running?
Are there other explanations for how the universe could look like it’s designed?
If the universe is designed, does that imply a good designer? Or could it be a designer who doesn’t care about the design?
Should intelligent design be taught in public school, since it doesn’t claim to be a faith but just a scientific theory?