roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

the mere fact that x causes y, I cannot conclude that y exists if,
and only if, x exists.
Now this confusion of verification with proof is exactly
what the teleological argument commits: (Footnote 46: Idem.)
virtuous minds tend to produce valuable things; the cosmic
process has resulted in the production of valuable things; therefore
it must be the effect and end of a virtuous mind. Clearly,
such argument is fallacious.
Suppose, in the ace of this difficulty, that refuge is taken in
mere verification, so that the existence of God becomes no
more than an hypothesis in the strict scientific sense. This is
certainly a possible position, but it is open to the charge that it
fails to explain the existence of bad things in the universe:
[indent] Although this may be a good hypothesis insofar as
it explains some of the facts, it is not so good as the hypothesis,
that 'chance,' i.e., the laws of nature operating without design,
produces all the events and things in the world. . . . If the world
is not ruled by a designing mind, but only by the blind laws of
nature, then that the world would be an indiscriminate mixture
of good and bad things---as it is---is precisely what we should
expect. (Footnote 47: Ibid., p. 82.)
The conclusion to be drawn is that "the argument from design
turns out to be worthless." (Footnote 48: Idem.)
In answer to this objection: we readily grant that the argument
from the progressive realization of valuable entities in an
order of increasing significance is a basic aspect of teleology;
and that if the argument rested merely on the analogy from experience
(i.e., that virtuous minds tend to produce valuable
things), it would either involve the fallacy of consequent or be
no more than a hypothesis. But we deny that these considerations
establish the invalidity of the argument.