B - ''Whether teleological arguments for God’s existence are persuasive in the 21st century.''

A - Teleological arguments for God’s existence are persuasive in the 21st century because Tennant argues there is beauty in nature beyond what is necessary to survive

Tennant argues that there is beauty in nature which is beyond what is necessary to survive.
Our appreciation of it is not necessary but it exists.
It is hard to explain why the world contains such extensive beauty and aesthetic beauty if it was the product of chance.

For example, humans experience awe when looking at sunsets, flowers, animals, the ocean.
The conclusion that can be made from this is that an omnibenevolent God wanted his creation to enjoy living on earth
Evidently the teleological argument is persuasive in the 21st century as it is unlikely that the beauty of nature is due to chance alone.

C - However, the teleological argument for God’s existence isn’t persuasive in the 21st century as beauty does seem to have survival value

However, beauty does seem to have survival value, being used for an evolutionary advantage.

For example, supporting evidence comes from the wren that sang itself to death to appear beautiful to have the best chance at finding a mate and therefore DNA survival.
This shows how beauty in the world that may seem unnecessary is actually rooted in evolutionary processes that are necessary for survival.
Which limits the persuasiveness of the teleological argument in the 21st century.

C - However, the teleological argument for God’s existence may still be persuasive in the 21st century as people also appreciate beauty that doesn’t have survival value

However, people also appreciate beauty that doesn’t have survival value.
This means that the evolutionary explanations may not be complete, which leaves room for the teleological argument

For example, people still expereince awe with manmade things like poetry, art, music, literature.
These clearly have no survival advantage
Evidently this shows that the teleological argument may still be persuasive in the 21st century as the existence of beauty that is unnecessary for survival seems better explained by a designer who wanted it to be recognised and appreciated.

D - The teleological argument for God’s existence is not persuasive in the 21st century

Because even if there is beauty that isn’t necessary for survival, these tend to be manmade innovations and doesn’t point towards a creator.
It is just humans occupying themselves.

A - The teleological argument for God’s existence is persuasive in the 21st century because the use of analogies can be strong

The use of analogies can be strong because they allow complex philosophical ideas to be understood by comparing them with something we are familiar with.
By comparing the universe with manmade objects, it helps people see purpose and order in nature.

For example, Paley’s watch analogy argues that if someone found a watch, they would infer a designer due to the complexity and purpose that can’t be by chance.
The same can be said for the universe due to it's even larger complexity and order, suggesting an intelligent designer.
Evidently this shows how the teleological argument is persuasive in the 21st century as it is logical that the natural world also points to a designer, well explained by the watch.

C - However, the teleological argument for God’s existence isn’t persuasive in the 21st century as there are problems with analogies

However, there are problems with analogies.
Hume thought that it was not right to draw comparisons between the world and machines and use them as analogies - as there is very little similarity.

For example, Hume argued that the world was far more similar to a carrot than a watch.
Because of principles of vegetation and generation creating the carrot.
Evidently, this shows how the teleological argument is not persuasive in the 21st century as it may not be convincing in proving a designer made the universe.

D - The teleological argument for God’s existence is persuasive in the 21st century

Because even if the similarity of the watch and universe has been criticised, it still doesn’t take away from the similarities in the intricate mechanisms that are apparent in both.
Which points to a designer either way.

A - The teleological argument for God’s existence is persuasive in the 21st century due to being based on empirical observation from the world around us

Based on empirical observation from the world around us.
The 5th way is based on the observable order and purpose within nature.

For example, Aquinas observed that non-rational beings acted towards particular ends/the best result for them.
Such as the water cycle, trees, planets.
From these observations he concluded that such order and purpose must be guided by an intelligent being - God.
‘‘Therefore, some intelligent being exists where all natural things are directed to their end - God.’’
Evidently, this shows how the teleological argument is persuasive in the 21st century as it is grounded in empirical observation that people can experience themselves.

C - However, teleological arguments for God’s existence isn’t persuasive in the 21st century due to its inductive nature

However, its inductive nature means that the argument doesn’t offer philosophical evidence.
people can still reject the conclusion of the designer being God, even if they accept the premises of the world having purpose, order, and apparent design.

For example, a person may agree that nature is ordered, purposeful or has apparent design but attributes it to evolution, natural selection or laws of physics rather than God.
Evidently this shows how the teleological argument isn’t persuasive in the 21st century as it being inductive makes it open to alternative interpretations.

D - The teleological arguments for God’s existence isn’t persuasive in the 21st century

Because even if the argument is based on empirical observation of the world around us, the inductive nature means that what is seen can support multiple conclusions, not just God.
Allowing critics to reject that the claims point to God.