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

I wish to thank Con for taking the time to debate this with me.I would just like to state that Con's assertion that I have moved the goal posts is bizarre and unwarranted. It was evident in my argument from the beginning that the arguments rests on the fact of a Designer being more probable than not.Premise 1 -- The Universe Resulted From Either Chance Or DesignCon claims this is a false analogy, but his claims are a baseless assertion. If this were truly a false dilemma, Con would be able to provide a third alternative. For example, his statement "I am either in Africa or Australia is obviously a false dilemma. He could be in Europe. Or he could be in South America. There are other places he could be. But if Con cannot provide a third alternative, he cannot dismiss this as a false alternative.I am arguing that the universe was designed by a Designer who designed the entire universe. If there isn't a Designer, then the universe is the result of chance (in other words, a non-intelligent force that somehow created a universe that appears to have been designed).AnthropomorphismIf there is a Designer of the universe, He logically came before that which He created. Therefore, we are not assigning human attributes to this Designer, quite the opposite. Our attributes were given to us by this Designer. If a Designer, in fact, designed us, it is entirely reasonable to suppose He used Himself as a template.Improbable Events Happen All The TimeI proved in the last round that the argument is not a non sequitur. As Con had nothing further to add, I will add nothing further in response.All This Done, With You And Me In MindAgain, there is no arrogance in supposing that this entire universe was designed for us. All it takes is simple observation. After all, this universe was fine tuned for our existence and here we are. I have already shown why it is more probable that we have been designed. It is, in fact, a mathematical impossibility for this entire universe to have resulted from chance and to be the way it is today (as I showed in my opening argument).Weak Anthropic PrincipleI have not changed what the WAP says, I pointed out a flaw in the principle. It is circular reasoning. It is not simply a matter of "beating the odds." The odds against it are so astronomical that it couldn't have happened by chance.Agnostic astronomer, Robert Jastrow, noted the universe is amazingly preadapted to the eventual appearance of humanity. [1] For if there were even the slightly variation at the moment of the big bang, making conditions different, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present today an incredibly restrictive set of demands mut have been present in the early universe -- and they were.Even Stephen Hawking has described how the value of many fundamental nuers in nature's laws "seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" and how "the initial configuration of the universe" appears to have been "very carefully chosen." [2]Due to the mathematical impossibility of chance creating the universe finely tuned for our survival, and the fact that literally hundreds of things had to be just right (and any one of which could have gone wrong and we would not be here today), it is more probable there is a Designer than not.Paintings, Buildings, Watches, and the UniverseSize + ComplexityCon's argument here simply doesn't follow. My argument is that since we know that paintings, buildings, and watches require a designer, then bigger and more complex things would require a designer. This logically follows. Con's argument about the tic tac does not. A tic tac obviously has a designer (how does Con think they show up in those little plastic containers at the store?). Tic tacs are small and simple, so they are designed. My argument is that we can infer that larger and more complex things require a designer is smaller and simpler things do.I should also point out that my arguments in this section are not new. Con was attacking a strawman of my actual argument, so I gave him my actual arguments. These arguments have not changed from my opening argument.Yes, Con can get away with nitpicking my argument. Okay, granted the universe is not "infinitely" more complex than man made objects. I was using "infinitely" in a more general sense since the universe is massively huge, whereas watches and buildings are but a mere speck in this great, big universe.The problem with Con's argument about paper is that the conclusion is obviously false. We know that paper has an intelligent designer. It doesn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Humans create paper. Additionally, his argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. You cannot assume that since the universe is massive and complex, that something small and simple like a piece of paper was not intelligently designed.This is not a priori reasoning but a posteriori. We know the universe had a beginning. It was either designed or arose from chance. We know from experience that things don't just pop into existence out of nothing. I have shown through evidence and reason why it is reasonable that it is more likely that universe was designed than not.Did God create the world?This is acually irrelevant to the debate. The Teleological Argument is only concerned with the design in the universe points to a Designer. The Teleological Argument makes no claim as to who this Designer is, or to which God or gods is (are) the correct one(s). It is part of a series of arguments that make a cumulative case for God's existence. In order to prove which God is the designer of the universe, it requires a different argument. As such, this is simply a red herring.I look forward to our final round. [1] Jastrow, Robert, "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow," CT, 6 August 1982.[2] As cited by F. Heeren, Show me God, p. 67.