The Teleological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

Pro is the one who made the resolution, "The Teleological Argument has failed and SHOULD NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN." That is the resolution that we are to debate. Why would he make that claim if he did not intend to defend it? The Teleological Argument may be flawed (which Pro has not established), but that does not mean it should be done away with completely. All that shows is that the flaw should be pinpointed, then fixed, and used.Since he made the claim, Pro bears the burden of proof in this debate, but has not established it. He didn't even attempt to argue that the universe could have arisen through physical necessity or chance. I will support the argument as established in the first round.Premise 1 -- The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.This premise is easily established. It merely lists the three possibilities that could account for our universe existing.Premise 2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from physical necessity or chance.What is meant by "fine-tuning"? William Lane Craig explains,"The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants, such as the gravitational constant, whose values are independent of the laws themselves; moreover, there are certain arbitrary quantities which are simply put in as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the initial low entropy condition of the universe. By "fine-tuning" one means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values." [1]The anthropic principle states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. [2] As agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow noted, the universe is amazingly preadapted to the eventual appearance of humanity. [3] For if there were even the slightest variation at the moment of the Big Bang, making conditions different, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. [4]So what can account for the sheer near impossibility that life would have arisen in our universe?Physical necessity?This does not seem likely. This alternative rests on a faulty assumption, that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible. But why should we believe this? There is no reason that this universe must have adapted life. It could much more easily have prevented life from existing.Chance?This is highly improbable. The odds are astronomically stacked against it, in fact.Julian Huxley, an arch-defender of Evolution, estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the odds against evolution happening by pure chance are 1 followed by 3 million zeros (fifteen hundred pages of zeros) to one. [5] Additionally, there are quite a lot of factors in our universe that have to be "just so," otherwise life would be impossible. There are so many of these factors that I couldn't possibly give them all here. A few examples include:The fact that our universe exists in three dimensions. It is due to its basic three-dimensionality that the world possesses the chemistry that it does, which furnishes some key conditions necessary for the existence of life. We don't know why the universe possesses three dimensions, but if it didn't then we wouldn't exist to ask that question. [6]Additionally, the values of the various forces of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. One example would be that if the strong force of nature were increased as much as 1%, nuclear resonance levels would be so altered that almost all carbon would be burned into oxygen; an increase of 2% would preclude formation of protons out of quarks, preventing the existence of atoms. Furthermore, weakening the strong force by as much as 5% would unbind deuteron, which is essential to stellar nucleosynthesis, leading to a universe composed only of hydrogen. It has been estimated that the strong force must be within 0.8 and 1.2 its actual strength or all elements of atomic weight greater than four would not have formed. [7]Now, Pro did allude to an argument regarding betting on numbers on a roulette wheel (I've also heard an argument from playing the lottery). William Lane Craig explains why this analogy is mistaken,"Contrary to popular impression, the argument for design is not trying to explain why this particular universe exists. Rather it's trying to explain why a life-permitting universe exists. The lottery analogy was misconceived because it focused on why a particular person won.The correct analogy would be a lottery in which billions and billions and billions of white ping-pong balls were mixed together with just one black ping-pong ball, and you were told that one ball will be randomly selected out of the horde. If it's black, you'll be allowed to live; if it's white, you'll be shot.Now notice that any particular ball that is randomly selected is equally improbable: No matter which ball rolls down the chute, the odds against that particular ball are fantastically improbable. But some ball must roll down the chute. This is the point illustrated by the first lottery analogy. That point, however, is irrelevant because we're not trying to explain why this particular ball was picked.The crucial point is that whichever ball rolls down the chute, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will be white rather than black. Getting the black ball is no more improbable than getting any particular white ball. But it is incomprehensably more probable that you will get a white ball instead of a black one. So if the black ball rolls down the chute, you certainly should suspect that the lottery was rigged to let you live." [8]And so on. It is simply not at all likely that the universe could have resulted from chance.Design?Design seems to be the more plausible explanation, when all factors of the state of our universe are taken into account.Conclusion -- Therefore, it is highly probable that it was due to design.To reiterate, there are only three alternatives -- that our universe was fine-tuned by physical necessity, chance, or design. There is no reason to suppose physical necessity; in fact, doing so begs the question. The odds against chance are so astronomical as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. The only possibility is that our universe is the result of design.I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org......; if the article doesn't come up, then simply search for it in the search bar.[2] Norm L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 2000, p. 27.[3] Robert Jastrow, "A Scientist Caught," as noted in ibid, p. 26.[4] ibid.[5] Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, as quoted in ibid., p. 718.[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org......; if the article doesn't come up, then simply search for it in the search bar.[7] ibid. See the article for more evidence on fine-tuning. [8] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, David C. Cook Publishing, 2010, pp. 114-115.