The thing is that Nature is not random and it very well may be that the laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution, make it inevitable. I would agree that this si a sort of teleology, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any design involved in the usual sense of that word. One might ask why should we be so lucky as that the universe would have a telos of cosmic evolution towards sentient life. However, the same question could be asked of God, i.e., why should we be so lucky as that God would wish to create human life? As such positing a Creator (an unknown entity inhabiting an unknown and very mysterious timeless/spaceless realm) is unparsimonious because it multiplies entities beyond necessity and appeals to mysteries in order to explain mysteries.
tp: The thing is that Nature is not random and it very well may be that the laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution, make it inevitable.
jc: The argument is circular, or at least you have not clarified specifically how “nature is not random” is expected to be related to, “it very well may be that the Laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution.” This is the question in point, whether nature is guiding itself, or required an external hand. Your “very well may be,” may very well be wrong. You here only assert that your mind is not persuaded, not giving objective criteria to sway others. A theist may say, “It may very well be that God made everything, and nature is otherwise random when unassisted.” Science has not gone far enough to answer this question well.
tp: I would agree that this si a sort of teleology, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any design involved in the usual sense of that word.
jc: Yes, when you can cogently explain how the non-random aspect of nature can arise by itself, it would be more than arguing from the way things are, where the mechanisms are unknown. You haven’t spoken accurately, a sign of unclear thinking. Instead of saying, “it does not necessarily mean,” to be clear you should say, “it has not been shown that it means.” Because if God made the world, then its non-random aspect necessarily means He made it. Failing to make this distinction, you exhibit a closed-mindedness, unable to conceive that God made it. To say, “it does not necessarily mean,” presumes another mechanism is possible, but it may not be so. If none other is possible, then it’s necessary.
tp: One might ask why should we be so lucky as that the universe would have a telos of cosmic evolution towards sentient life. However, the same question could be asked of God, i.e., why should we be so lucky as that God would wish to create human life?
jc: In my experience people are not truly glad to be present on Earth in human bodies. So if you say you feel lucky, you’d be in the minority. Even if you listen to the Christians you hear they believe life to be a curse, that it is a “vale of sorrows.” You’d have to prove to me that “nature with a capital N” or God has succeeded in creating joyful entities. In particular explain why they make war between the nations, and fast destroy their habitat.
tp: As such positing a Creator (an unknown entity inhabiting an unknown and very mysterious timeless/spaceless realm) is unparsimonious because it multiplies entities beyond necessity and appeals to mysteries in order to explain mysteries.
jc: Again, you have not pointed to mechanisms, but appear to believe in “nature with a capital N” without any privilege compared to Christians, i.e. operating by faith, not knowledge. Occam’s razor does not apply everywhere, and it may not apply here. If you explain the mechanisms whereby you posit “nature with a capital N” has operated, you’d be ahead of the theists, who were given no mechanisms by any of the religious revelations. Are you witty enough to see this mystery, that God may have misled men?