The teleological argument for God's existence is unsound

After reading my opponents points he has left me with just 2 to refute. One about inductive reasoning, and one about it being a matter of fact. So now I shall try to address both arguments. Logicians have a term: "Inference to the best explanation. " This means you have a body of data to be explained, and then you have a pool of live options or various explanations for that data. You need to choose which explanation from that pool, if true, best explain the observed data. The Teleological Argument or Intelligent Design case does not need to prove rigidly by deductive reasoning its point to remain a valid, rational, logical case to bring up in discussions or debates to support the existence of God or some other intelligent designer for that matter. By the end of my opponents last round he might have almost got you thinking "inductive reasoning" is synonymous with irrational or illogical or even irrelevant. At least I guess that"s his implication because if he can"t show the Teleological Argument to be inherently irrational, illogical, or irrelevant to its used purpose"s, then he fails to make a sufficient case against the argument itself for this debates resolution. That"s how I interpret it anyway because if the argument is not inherently irrational (though at the least Pro says its inductive logic, and it establishes a "matter of fact") then its not totally dumb to use it in debates and if its not irrelevant than it even serves its purpose to support other debate resolutions like "God exist". To better explain lets go to the alien example my opponent gave. The aliens who have a telescope and there watching just one town in china to observe earth. So they use inductive reasoning and believe all humans are Chinese. Pro said that would be fallacious thinking for them. Why? Think about it from there perspective, if they have no clues yet leading them to be open to diverse breads of humans why would it be arrogant of them to go on thinking all the humans are one way until they observe otherwise? Especially if on there own alien planet they themselves do not have multiple races or nations. Basically this amounts to when approaching the man looking at a watch he found who is saying he believes a watchmaker made it "your thinking is faulty because you could be wrong" I don"t think any of us would hold it against the first man for holding onto believing the watch looks designed because it was made by design, because inference should go to the best explanation Another point to counter against my opponent"s first case about inductive reasoning. "because we have not observed it all you cannot apply the I. D. argument to all of it" If that"s so, the same logic could be used to say "we have not measured all the drops of water in the ocean you cant apply what you"ve measured about some of the water hear at the shore is like the rest of the ocean. " It would rule out being able to go with the theory that its all got salt in it. but that"s really not that far a leap to make. You yourself would probably tell me I"m the one making a wild ungrounded claim should I say there could be living dinosaurs in the parts of Africa not explored yet, when to our observation of the world thus far, dinosaurs are extinct. But that would be an inductive guess on your part wouldn"t it? Being an inductive argument does not inherently raise any problems with an argument. If every argument has to establish solid proof of its case by itself then even a deductive one can come to problems with proof. Example "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates is mortal" ultimately you don"t prove Socrates is not an exception to the rule "all men are mortal" until he dies. Another point to consider that defends the I. D. argument. Even if the rest of the universe that"s unobserved is completely without sign of design, the argument would still stand that our originally observed part was designed. Example of my point: "will smith is walking through a city full of buildings and cars, subways, streets, ect" later he reaches its edge for the first time and sees the natural forest. Despite this new discovery, he still believes men existed to build the city that appears designed. " Well I"ve spent enough time on the first point. Although I feel my two main contentions against your point about it only being inductive logic apply to your point about "matter of facts" as well. That in the end even if your right its not a inherent problem for the I. D. argument, as it doesn"t make it illogical or irrelevant in debates about God or other possible designers. Also to use that abduction logic statement once again "inference to the best explanation". There does not need to be a contradiction in "in the premise that undirected matter could give way to products which are orderly", the concept that they look designed because they are designed just flat out shows it up as a better explanation. And that really seems to do enough to answer that point as well but I"d like to end this round on this note since your taking your case from David Hume. Even Hume admitted that he"d "never asserted a proposition so absurd as to say anything might arise without a cause". And thanks to science we are positive the universe arose or began to exist (the big bang) and so it had a cause. To say it was caused by nothing from nothing, is in essence a lack of explanation, while to point to an intelligent force apart from the universe as we know it as its cause and architect is an explanation. Well that"s it for this round, next round I shall give my case for the assertion I"ve been simply stating that the teleological argument is indeed the best explanation. I look forward to my opponent"s response