The traditional arguments for the existence of God, even when they don't achieve their purpose, at least help us to discern a concept of Her.
Such is the case of the teleological argument, also known as argument from design, that, when put together with the cosmological argument, gives us an idea of what we should understand when we are talking about God.
The teleological argument can be understood as an analogy between the things the human being create and the things that exist in nature. Intelligence is the ability that allows the capacity of creation for the human being. The teleological argument says that there should be something analogous to the human intelligence that has created the things that exists in nature.
The cosmological argument is based in the idea that everything has a cause, reason of being or explanation, even when we don't know it. Based in this principle, we reached the conclusion that everything that exists must have an ultimate explanation, which is the foundation of reality.
If we identify this ultimate explanation of the cosmological argument with the creative intelligence of the teleological argument, we reach the conclusion that the ultimate foundation of reality is at least rational. This is God: the unifying principle of reality.
But there is the danger of making a too simplistic analogy. If there must be something analogous to the intelligence of the human being that has created everything that exists, we can't conclude it must be too similar to the human being. On the contrary, in virtue of being God the ultimate foundation of reality, there must be a chasm between the Being of God, which is the source of all existence, and the human being. That chasm cannot be measured.
That is why Paul Tillich was right when he said that we can't even say that God is a person, but being the source of all existence, and in particular, the existence of the human person, God can't be less than a person. God can't be less than rational.
Such is the case of the teleological argument, also known as argument from design, that, when put together with the cosmological argument, gives us an idea of what we should understand when we are talking about God.
The teleological argument can be understood as an analogy between the things the human being create and the things that exist in nature. Intelligence is the ability that allows the capacity of creation for the human being. The teleological argument says that there should be something analogous to the human intelligence that has created the things that exists in nature.
The cosmological argument is based in the idea that everything has a cause, reason of being or explanation, even when we don't know it. Based in this principle, we reached the conclusion that everything that exists must have an ultimate explanation, which is the foundation of reality.
If we identify this ultimate explanation of the cosmological argument with the creative intelligence of the teleological argument, we reach the conclusion that the ultimate foundation of reality is at least rational. This is God: the unifying principle of reality.
But there is the danger of making a too simplistic analogy. If there must be something analogous to the intelligence of the human being that has created everything that exists, we can't conclude it must be too similar to the human being. On the contrary, in virtue of being God the ultimate foundation of reality, there must be a chasm between the Being of God, which is the source of all existence, and the human being. That chasm cannot be measured.
That is why Paul Tillich was right when he said that we can't even say that God is a person, but being the source of all existence, and in particular, the existence of the human person, God can't be less than a person. God can't be less than rational.
Comments