The differences between the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument for the existence of God.

The Teleological argument plainly states that the world is too complex and far too detailed just by chance, that is has a designer. It argues against the Big Bang by putting it into prospective and comparing a watch with the world. On a smaller scale, it explains that if all the small pieces of a watch were put in a tray and thrown up, there is not a very big chance in the slightest that they would all fall down fitted into place and working properly. Therefore it must have had a designer, someone who designed, planned and made the watch. If you look at the world like the watch, and think about how it had a designer to make it, you can understand the Teleological Argument saying that the world is way to complex to just appear from a bang. Even if you just take a hedgehog for instance, even though they are very small, they very complicated in design, i.e. the way that they adapt to winter, the way that their lungs work, the food they eat, all these things have been planned. Then if you next look at the whole world, how could something so big and so extremely complicated just happen?

Each argument for the existence of God is deeply thought out and makes some good points, however they both have their weak and strong points. The man who wrote the Teleological Argument is called F.R Tennant. The Teleological Argument is just stating that there must have been a designer to produce such a magnificent thing like the world, but is not however proving that there is a God and that he was the designer of the world. It does bring out some good points and shows the existence of God in a new prospective which could possible change how some people look at the world, but is not proving anything about God really existing. An Atheist could look at the Teleological Argument and may agree or disagree. If they agree, it's not necessarily based on God and that they believe that God is the designer of the world. They could just perhaps believe the idea of a designer but it may not be God. The Cosmological Argument, although it's a lot more confusing but you can cut in down into smaller sections and explains how something could not come from nothing, again is not proving that there is a God, but some sort of designer. The Cosmological Argument talks more about history stating that the some sort of cause is eternal, with no beginning and no end. Where as the Teleological Argument doesn't speak of the past or future but just simply says that the universe is designed in such a way that life evolved into existence.

In conclusion, both arguments are different and may or may not convince an Atheist that there is a God. There are so many arguments, which develop over the years trying to prove there is an existing God but who's to say which one is right? Some may be more believable than others may but there are always two sides to every story. You could take the Teleological Argument for instance and say how can you compare something like a watch, which we know has a designer to something as huge as the universe. Just because something is complicated and fits like a watch, which was obviously thought through and designed by someone, doesn't prove that the same thing happened in the world.