Editing Teleological argument (section)

==Similar discussions in other civilizations==

===Hinduism===
[[Nyaya]], the Hindu school of logic, had a version of the argument from design. P.G. Patil writes that, in this view, it is not the complexity of the world from which one can infer the existence of a creator, but the fact that "the world is made up of parts". In this context, it is the Supreme Soul, [[Ishvara]], who created all the world.

The argument is in five parts:<ref>Patil, Parimal. G. 2013. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=z88GAfvNGH0C&dq=buddhism+%22argument+from+design%22&pg=PT65 Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India]''. [[Columbia University Press]]. Chapter 2.

In a note, the author says that the Nyaya argument has been called a "cosmo-teleological argument".</ref>
# The ... world ... has been constructed by an intelligent agent.
# On account of being an effect.
# Each and every effect has been constructed by an intelligent agent, just like a pot.
# And the world is an effect.
# Therefore, it has been constructed by an intelligent agent.

However, other Hindu schools, such as [[Samkhya]], deny that the existence of God can ever be proved, because such a creator can never be perceived. [[Krishna Mohan Banerjee]], in his ''Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy'', has the Samkhya speaker saying, "the existence of God cannot be established because there is no proof. ... nor can it be proved by Inference, because you cannot exhibit an analogous instance."<ref>Banerjea, K. M. 1861. ''Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy Comprising the Nyaya, the Sankhya, the Vedanta''. Thacker Spink. p. 252.</ref>

===Buddhist criticism of Hindu Nyaya logic===
[[Buddhism]] denies the existence of a creator god, and rejects the Nyaya [[syllogism]] for the teleological argument as being "logically flawed". Buddhists argue that "the 'creation' of the world cannot be shown to be analogous to the creation of a human artifact, such as a pot".<ref>Jackson, R. R. 1993. ''Is Enlightenment Possible?: Dharmakīrti and RGyal Tshab Rje on Knowledge, Rebirth, No-self and Liberation''. [[Snow Lion Publications]]. p. 130.</ref>

===Confucianism===
The 18th century German philosopher [[Christian Wolff (philosopher)|Christian Wolff]] once thought that [[Confucius]] was a godless man, and that "the ancient Chinese had no natural religion, since they did not know the creator of the world". However, later, Wolff changed his mind to some extent. "On Wolff's reading, Confucius's religious perspective is thus more or less the weak deistic one of [[David Hume|Hume]]'s [[Cleanthes]]."<ref>Van Norden, B. W. 2002. ''Confucius and the Analects''. [[Oxford University Press]]. p.&nbsp;83.</ref>

===Taoism===
The Taoist writings of the 6th-century-BC philosopher [[Laozi]] (also known as Lao Tzu) have similarities with modern naturalist science. B. Schwartz notes that, in [[Taoism]], "The processes of nature are not guided by a teleological consciousness ... the tao [dao] is not consciously providential.<ref>Schwartz, B., Quoted in Lai, K., ''An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy'', Cambridge University Press, 2008, p.&nbsp;79.</ref>