The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

I wish to thank Illegal Combatant for again debating this with me. Con does not call into dispute the facts behind my second premise, so it seems that my second premise has been affirmed. It is highly improbable that the universe resulted from chance. So it seems what is really in dispute is my first premise.Premise 1 -- The universe resulted either from design or chance.The late Christopher Hitchens Now, what Hitchens said in the debate is true on the surface. But the thing to keep in mind is that the Teleological Argument is but one in a series of arguments meant to make a cumulative case for the existence of God. The Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and the Ontological Argument are also used in conjunction with this argument to make the case for God's existence. The Telelogical Argument is not concerned with whether or not God cares about His creation, just that the universe was designed by a Designer. The only attribute that we could possibly discover from this argument is that He is an intelligent Designer. If you want to prove exactly which God is the one that exists (for example the Christian God), then that is a topic for another debate altogether. It is not within the scope of this argument to establish which God actually exists.AnthropomorphismI don't think "anthropomorphism" is a relevant topic to bring up in this debate. For if there is a Designer who designed our universe, He naturally existed before the universe and humans were created. Therefore we are not assigning human characteristics to God. Instead, He infused us with characteristics that mirror, or at least come close to, His own.False DilemmaCon claims that this is a false dilemma, but simply asserting that something is a logical fallacy does not make it so. Notice that Con did not present a third alternative. Simply presenting only two alternatives does not make it a false dilemma. Unless Con can present a third alternative, it is evidence that premise one is not actually a false dilemma.If, in fact, the universe was not designed by an Intelligent Designer, then that just leaves chance to direct the process and create order from the chaos of the Big Bang into the universe that we see today. I really don't see a third alternative.Improbable EventsI would like to point out that my arugment is not a non-sequitur. Remember, premise two is that it is highly improbable that the universe resulted from chance. The conclusion is therefore, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. Not that it's 100% certain that it was designed, just that it's highly probable that it was designed, due to the fact that it is highly improbable the universe resulted from chance. As such, my argument is completely valid because the conclusion logically follows from the two premises. It is not a non sequitur at all.The purpose of designThis is not vanity. Philosophers have been debating and wondering about why we're here for thousands of years. One of the most fundamental questions of philosophy is why is there something instead of nothing. This universe might have been created especially for us. Claiming it is vanity is not a serious objection to this argument. How does Con know the universe wasn't made just for us. It seems to be, considering all the numerous things that have to be in place in order for us to thrive here.Weak Anthropic PrincipleKelly's Weak Anthropic Principle is circular reasoning. It begs the question. It essentially says we are here because the universe is compatible for our existence. We know the universe is compatible for our existence because we are here. This doesn't answer why the universe is compatible for our existence. It does not prove the universe was not designed.DesignCon's argument does not reflect my statement. It should read more like this:1) Paintings, buildings, and watches require an intelligent designer.2) The universe is infinitely more complex than paintings, buildings, or watches.3) Therefore, the universe must have been intelligently designed.Con's argument is only a non sequitur because it is a strawman argument.SizeI'm afraid I don't understand Con's reasoning here. I never said big means intelligently designed and small means not intelligently designed. I am saying that smaller, simpler things (like paintings, buildings, and watches) require an intelligent designer, so larger, more complex things require an intelligent designer. It's possible I'm misunderstanding Con's argument, so I would ask that he clarify next round.ComplexityAgain, Con is attacking a strawman. A more accurate argument would be thus:1) A watch/building requires an intelligent designer.2) A human is more complex than a watch or building.3) Therefore, humans require an intelligent designer.Contrary to Wikichariots, this argument is not making a God of the gaps. In fact, this argument is a very reasonable argument for God's existence. If smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer, then it logically follows that larger, more complex things require an intelligent designer. There is nothing fallacious about that reasoning.Con states that the knowledge of paintings, buildings, or watches being intelligently designed is gained a posteriori, but the same is true of the universe. We know from experience that smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer so it logically follows, again, that larger and more complex things require an intelligent designer.I believe the argument stands as both valid and sound. I look forward to Con's response.