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

I am quite glad to be able to continue this debate with my opponent. My opponent is correct in stating we have no absolute proof of life on other planets. The reason why life doesn't exist on Mars today is because a very large asteroid hit the planet, which would have been absolutely catastrophic. This caused Mars to have the very thin atmosphere it has today. Pro asks why, if life in this universe is not so improbable, have we not run into it yet? There are many different reasons that we should not expect to see life just yet. Just a few: 1. Life has existed before, but it has destroyed itself, or was lost to meteor strike. 2. Life exists, but does not interfere with pre-star traveling cultures (like in Star Trek). 3. Our signals have not reached them yet, or they have an their response has not reached us yet (closest candidates are 80 light years away. A signal back and forth would take 160 years). 4. Life is so rare, it only occurs once or twice a galaxy. Since there are billions of galaxies, this leaves the known universe with billions of life producing planets, each entirely out of reach of the other. As I said, there are many reasons that we have yet to contact other life, these are only a few. I take issue with Pro's last sentence of his first major paragraph. In it he opines that should we find life on other planets, the low odds of life would make it a miracle. However if we DON'T find life, then we are so rare we must be a miracle. Pro cannot have it both ways. If life is plentiful in the universe, then perhaps the odds simply are not as low as Pro makes them out to be, as I've argued previously. Next, my opponent argues that the idea of natural processes creating order seems impossible. Yet, so many natural processes create order. Look at a snowflake. Each one, for all intents and purposes, has a unique but ordered structure. Now which explains that better: Crystalization Dynamics, or an intelligent being taking the time to form each one themselves? Why would we assume the latter when we understand the forces behind the former? Look at chemicals and the way they interact. Constantly, and not just in organic chemistry, we see simple chemicals naturally bond with other simple chemicals to create long complex chemicals with entirely different properties. Non-intelligent processes create order because the work through consistent causes and effects, and consistency creates patterns, and patterns create order. Pro's assertion that atheists would have you believe that the numbers on my webpage example just happened to show up in a constant 0-9 pattern misses two facts. The first being that the order he suggests is no more or less likely than any other collection of numbers my webpage could produce. The second being that he assumes 0-9 is the only thing that would "get the job done" so to speak. My opponent is correct in stating that life did not have to develop on earth. This assertion is telling though, and it proves my point. He's looking at the current situation, and then determining the probability of that specific outcome. To further illustrate my point, go load up my webpage again. Whatever numbers come up, let's pretend those are the numbers that produce human life as we see it today. My opponent would argue that any other set of numbers, then, would produce absolutely nothing. That combination, the human life producing one, is the only significant combination out of zillions. This is a misstep. In order for Pro's argument to make any sense or in any way be valid, he would have to go through every single possible result, then look at the outcome of that result, and mark whether it produced life, then show what percentage of the time it produced life. Now I admit, it will be very rare that the combinations would produce human life. Some of them, however, will produce a completely different intelligent life form. If they looked at the numbers that produced us and used my opponent's reasoning, they cross them off as it did not produce them, and the same with innumerable other possible intelligent species. That's only the intelligent ones too. How many would produce life that did not reach sentience? The point here is, my opponent is playing with probabilities without knowing the vast majority of the factors, and therefore does not really know of all the various outcomes. He only looks at one possibility as the "correct" one, ignoring all the others that, if they were the case, would see us as the "incorrect" possibility. When my opponent asks why this couldn't be just a barren world, my response is that it could have been. However when we are talking about "human life", there are a number of steps in the evolutionary process that could have gone differently that would have produced something other than human life. This goes along with my reasoning that there are many other combinations that would seem unlikely, but together all of the unlikely combinations means that it is likely that an unlikely combination would occur. Next, Pro has a few misconceptions about evolution. My use of giraffes was only an example use to show how natural selection could work. The catalyst for giraffe evolution is still a hotly debated topic, with some arguing for my example but others contending it was sexual selection among males. The details may be challenging to discern, but I hope my opponent isn't arguing that they evolved. The fact that we evolved is about as controversial as whether some birds can fly. We've seen species evolve from one to the other, we see mutations accumulate, we see traits develop for defense and offensive (read: survival) purposes. As biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky writes "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". It is the cornerstone of biology. If my opponent needs actual information in the subject, he can view horse evolution which has a host of transitional fossils demonstrating their development, or a species of we understand even better, human evolution. The attached video to this argument explains this quite nicely. . http://www.youtube.com... He asks why giraffes evolved and simply didn't "die out". Well that is what happens most of the time. Evolution is a slow processes, taking many thousands and sometimes millions of years. When environmental change happens too rapidly, many times life can't keep up. The vast majority of species that have lived on this planet, no longer do so for this very reason. Pro then asks why other universes don't collide with ours if they exist. I would ask him why Mario and the Mushroom Kingdom never collide with Darth Vader and Tatooine. They may be fiction, but my point is that they might not even have the ability to collide with each other. Not to mention that it takes billions of years for galaxies to collide, why does my opponent assume that universes must collide more often than that? Perhaps one will collide with ours someday. My opponent incorrectly claims that I am pre-supposing the existence of other universes. In fact, since it is he that is making the claim of improbability, it is he that is pre-supposing the non-existence of other universes. Unless he knows how expansive existence is, he cannot make an accurate calculation the probability of something occurring within existence. If he does not know how many times the dice have been thrown, he cannot calculate the probability of one of those throws being snake eyes. Without this information, the entirety of the teleological argument fails.