One of the most controversial and focal inter-disciplinary challenge in filed of science and religion, and contemporary natural teleology, is TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (TA) or "ARGUMENT from finality" for the existence of God. In this paper by analyzing one of the specific revisions of the TA, named: "Cosmological Fine-Tuning ARGUMENT (CFTA)" (by William Laine Craig), we will criticize main competitor's natural explanations-(a)Multiverse Hypothesis, (b)other kinds of Life, (c) Supper symmetry Breaking theory-and defend this claim that "CFTA is the best explanation for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe". If CFTA is sound and persuasive, "Theistic Finalism" is better explanation than "Atheistic naturalism" for explaining Fine-Tuned state of the world and the way of Atheism, in methodological naturalism (MN), is not a paved way.

The design ARGUMENT faced with big different writings in its Western background so that these writings have essential difference with each other. The design ARGUMENT is posteriori demonstration for the existence of God which by analogy or induction and partial or general instances of the order in nature tries to affirm the intelligent designer. Since the concepts of design and end have firm connection with each other in the Western writings of this design but the concepts of purposiveness of divine acts, purposiveness of nature and its best system is assumed the same with each other and obvious confusion has been made between the design ARGUMENT with the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT and the best creational system.The aim of the article is to consider order in the world based upon the united components of a system (design ARGUMENT), final cause (TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT) and best system (best creational system ARGUMENT) and also to manifest the connection and distinction of these three reasoning.

Antony Flew is one of the atheistic figures of the contemporary world who is famous for his ARGUMENT against the existence of God, so his refraining for his atheistic position is of high importance for the religious community. This was the impetus for the authors to make an attempt to find out what made Antony Flew change his position. It is hypothesised that the new versions of the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT which is based on the new findings in the field of biology especially the findings related to DNA is the major cause of his change of position. It is through the investigation of the above hypothesis that it is demonstrated Flew has only been able to move to the stage of natural theology, that is, a sort of Aristotelian theology which is based on rational necessity. He has a long way to go to get to revealed theism.

One of the most popular accounts of the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT for the existence of God is the analogical account that is the center of Hume’s knocker criticisms. Since Hume’s age, many theist scholars have attempted to propose convincing responses. Motahari is one of the rigorous thinkers who tackled the challenges which Hume posed. The purpose of this paper is to address Hume’s criticisms and assess Motahari’s rejoinders to them. It will be argued that Motahari’s responses do not seem successful. Although Motahari has tried to refute Hume’s criticisms in some of his works, he implicitly endorsed Hume’s assessment of the analogical account of the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT in other works, and came ultimately close to the Hume’s view. As Hume believed that the ARGUMENT from design is not a successful philosophical ARGUMENT to prove God’s existence that the theist contend, Motahari also admits at the end that this ARGUMENT alone cannot prove God’s existence and emphasizes that the ARGUMENT from design cannot prove God of Abraham’s religions, that is a person with necessary being, who is immaterial and eternal, is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and the creator of the universe. Motahari ultimately believed in deficiency of the ARGUMENT from design too, and assessed it as an ARGUMENT with limited functions for God’s existence.

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume seeks to refute the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT on the basis of the existence of evil in the world. This paper addresses this main objection of Hume’ s. I will discuss whether a skeptical theist, in particular, is in a position to answer Hume’ s objection. The problem for skeptical theists is that Hume’ s objection to the design ARGUMENT is structurally symmetrical to their solution to the problem of evil. I will argue that this structural symmetry can be specified in two ways, which I will call “ unknown reasons for the design” and “ ignorance of God’ s reasons” . I will argue that while the first symmetry is not threatening to the design ARGUMENT, the second symmetry poses a serious problem for the design ARGUMENT. Nevertheless, I will argue that a theist may be able to respond to the problem, provided that she weakens her conclusion sufficiently, and that she takes onboard certain assumptions.

Fine-Tuning ARGUMENT (PTA) starts with the claim that the physical constants, the laws of nature and, accordingly, the interconnections between the parts of the physical world have been fine-tuned such that we may infer the existence of some supernatural fine-tuner whose attributes, inferred through some other possible inferences, may allow calling him "God". FTA, at both local and global/universal levels, takes the empirical data of natural sciences as the evidence of the intelligent purposeful agent having a hand in the origin, structure, and evolution of the universe, so that the apparent cosmic coincidence among the physical constants as well as .the events, from physical to biological and psychological ones, indicate some purposeful fine-tuning leading to a life-permitting and even intelligence-permitting world. Now, PTA may be considered as the most popular variety of TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT and Design ARGUMENT that has attracted the attention of some specialists among the scientists, theologians and philosophers interested in searching some sound ARGUMENT for the existence of God based not on religious sacred texts but on human cognitive faculties. But PTA, like TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT and Design ARGUMENT, suffering some problematic features, needs philosophical elucidation and evaluation. In this paper, the author, sympathetic towards those who try to scientifically and philosophically rationalize their belief in the fine-tuner/designer/maker/creator of the world, and have a trust on PTA, tries to examine the "ARGUMENT" on the basis of some Islamic and Western philosophical achievements. The, author, willing to disagree with any ultimate agnosticism and negativism, tries to show the weak and strong features of PTA to help the believers, in particular those who have a theological trend and position, to know the weaknesses of the "ARGUMENT", on the one hand, and its capacities in the face of both its deniers and rivals, on the other hand.

Every ethical system possesses at least six core elements: a theory of moral value, fundamental moral principles, rules of inference, incentives for adhering to ethical principles and rules, enforcement mechanisms for those principles and rules, and a justification for the necessity of being moral and for the validity of the said ethical system. This system is constructed and refined based on sources of moral knowledge and ethical foundations and is presented to its target society. Within this system, the theory of moral value is recognized as the principal element, upon which all other elements rely in some manner. Within Jewish ethical systems, two distinct theories are observed concerning the theory of moral value: "A deontological perspective and a TELEOLOGICAL perspective. Some scholars currently argue that Jewish ethics is deontological and present reasoning for this position." This paper, with reference to the Tanakh (the Old Testament) and the foundations of ethics in Judaism, emphasizes the TELEOLOGICAL viewpoint and critiques the ARGUMENTs put forth by deontologists. The difference between these two perspectives has been notably evident in the conduct of the Zionist regime and its supporters over the past two years. From a deontological viewpoint, it is sufficient for a religious scholar to justify, based on their own interpretation, the massacre of the people of Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran by citing a divine command; in this scenario, no rational, empirical or even emotional ARGUMENT can prevent such crimes.

The question of the beginning and end of existence is one of the fundamental issues that philosophers have addressed with different approaches such as evidentialism. Antony Flew is one of the philosophers of evidentialism who, during the two periods of his scientific life, based on evidence, sought the analysis of theism and first turned to atheism and then to deism. Of course, changing his belief in God does not mean completely changing all the beliefs of his atheistic times. What is his view in the age of atheism and deism and the analysis of what Flew has actually preserved from his atheistic thought and what he has changed,, and to what extent his reasons are compatible with its results and what weaknesses are there in his theistic thought, are the subjects of this article. As a result of this analysis, it will be clear that Flew still stands on many of the positions of his time of atheism. His thought has weaknesses, and Flew has contradictions about his reasons and conclusions.

Since the beginning of his life, man has been looking for a reason for the origin of existence, and this issue has provided the basis for discussion among thinkers. Antony Flew is one of the thinkers who, based on evidentialism and following the analysis of religious worldview, first turns to atheism and then to deism. According to his approach, Flew sought scientific and experimental evidence for his beliefs, which by resorting to this approach and its arrangement in the form of TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, finally leads to deism that the analysis of these evidences is the subject of this article. As a result, it will become clear that these scientific and empirical reasons can be useful evidence for deism to some extent, but the nature of science is the lack of stability, and transformation, which is considered an important weakness for epistemological matters. Also, although Flew does not go beyond deism by appealing to them, he refers to God's intervention in nature after creation, which indicates the lack of sufficient coherence of his thought after the change of belief. Finally, it should be said that considering his deism, his belief in practice is not much different from his atheism.