ARGUMENTS FOR MONOTHEISM 2054 If artifacts are operationally functional things, natural objects are
operationally functional things, and operational functionality in
artifacts is adequately explicable only by reference to (human)
intelligence, then operational functionality in natural objects is
adequately explained only by reference to intelligence. So:
5 Operational functionality in natural objects is adequately explained
only by reference to intelligence. (from 1–4)
6 Operational functionality in natural objects is not caused by human
intelligence.
7 What is caused by intelligence other than human is caused by non-
human intelligence.
8 If operational functionality in natural objects is adequately explained
only by reference to intelligence, and operational functionality in
natural objects is not caused by human intelligence, and what is
caused by intelligence other than human is caused by non-human
intelligence, then operational functionality in natural objects is
adequately explained only by reference to non-human intelligence.
9 Operational functionality in natural objects is adequately explained
only by reference to non-human intelligence. (from 5–8)
10 If operational functionality in natural objects is adequately explained
only by reference to non-human intelligence, then there is strong
evidence that there is non-human intelligence.
11 There is strong evidence that there is non-human intelligence. (from
9, 10)
The conclusion is neither uninteresting (a newspaper editor convinced of
its truth would put it in her headlines) nor as strong as Monotheism is true.
Its religious relevance becomes obvious if one thinks what sorts of powers a
being would have to have in order to cause operational functionality in
natural objects.
The Hindu monotheist Ramanuja offers the following objections to the
argument from design. Reacting to Indian versions of the argument from
design he says:
(1) There is no proof to show that the earth, oceans, etc., al-
though things produced, were created at one time by one creator.
Nor can it be pleaded in favor of such a conclusion that all those
things have one uniform character of being effects, and thus are
analogous to one single jar, for we observe that various effects
are distinguished by difference of time of production, and differ-
ence of producers... for experience does not exhibit to us one
agent capable of producing everything.^29