1.
In the teleological argument for the existence of God, it is said that a higher power must exist in order to create the specific and complex conditions for life in the universe. In essence, the existence of intelligent life itself is evidence that God exists; an intelligent creator is implied in the existence of these forms. The complexity of life, much like a pocketwatch, implies the existence of the watchmaker.
While this is a compelling argument for the existence of God, one of the main criticisms one can levy against it is the fact that this argument severely underestimates the ability of nature or natural selection to create that complexity as well. The teleological argument implies an absolute; that there HAS to be a sentient, intelligent force driving these changes and creations, otherwise it cannot possibly exist. In essence, complexity does not imply intelligent design; oftentimes, complexity in life forms can exist for random reasons and in different contexts. Keeping this in mind, the teleological argument does not completely hold water.
2.
In the cosmological argument for the existence of God, it is posited that there is a First Cause to the universe; something had to happen first in order to create the universe itself. This is often used to argue for the idea of a supreme being existing to create it. Its structure is as follows: 1) everything has a cause; 2) there is no such thing as a causal loop; 3) it is not possible to have an infinite chain of causality; therefore 4) there has to be a First Cause to the universe. Despite this argument, one typical counterpoint to the argument is that there also has to be a cause to the First Cause; furthermore, just because there might be a First Cause does not necessarily mean that the First Cause was a supreme being like God; it could be the Big Bang or something similar. I believe these objections are successful, as there is no real evidence of intelligent design, or of the need to identify the First Cause with a sapient being that is responsible for the direct creation of life. No explanation is given within the argument to posit the nature of the First Cause.
3.
The mind-body problem relates to the difficulties that relate to how to relate the relationship between the human body (which is physical) and the intricacies of the human mind. Descartes viewedvthe mind and body as two separate entities; the body is extended, while the mind is thinking. As a result, the opposition of these two ideas by which these aspects of the self operate present themselves as separate, discrete units that are capable of their own level of understanding, and can be understood independently of the other. The mind-body problem comes from the way in which these two distinct forces interact; the body informs the mind and vice versa. The reality of the unified self (mind and body working together) can be thrown into doubt, due to the strange way in which each individual half works; however, what then explains how they work together? According to Descartes, God has the capability and the power to make two different components work together to form a seamless whole, and so it is entirely possible that the human being is that whole. The question of whether or not machines can think is related to the mind-body problem because of the need to understand the actual relationship (which is made impossible by the mind-body problem) between the body and the mind to create beings that could be capable of sapient thought like humans can.
