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

Even if there was intelligent life on Mars, an asteroid hitting the planet might wipe out all life but it certainly wouldn't erase all evidence of their existence. There would surely be debris from structures that have existed, or something that would show an intelligent species once lived there. Responding to Con's five points:1. Again, this would not erase all evidence of the race's existence.2. This is possible, of course, but if multiple alien races exist it is highly doubtful that all other alien races would refuse to interfere.3. This is true as well. In fact, since our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate of speed, it's unlikely that we'll ever have visitors from another planet since we're moving away from them faster than they could reach us. However, since there are probably a million different combinations in which life could arise, this doesn't explain why we're the only race that has developed in our galaxy.4. This is probable, but at present we only have speculation and no evidence that other races even exist. I understand it looks like I'm leaving an impossible situation for Con. Let me rephrase: Evolution has been shown to be mathematically impossible (as I showed in my opening argument), that life developing here was a naturalistic miracle (if no God exists). Since life developing is so rare, if it should be found on other planets then it seems that it would only bolster the evidence for God's existence, due to how astronomical the odds are. Even if Con is right, and other forms of life are possible, one must wonder why only one race would develop in our galaxy instead of two, and why there would be no traces of any other races of beings if they once existed. However, it's not just that we are alone in the universe, but the fact that we are alone and the world we live in, coupled with the universe around us, seems fine-tuned for our existence, that lends credibility for God's existence. If only one of a thousand things had not developed properly, life as we know it would not have existed. Obviously the universe around us is hostile to human life, but there are traits of it which help us (for example, the placement of Jupiter helps deflect meteroids from hitting us). I don't believe that God has nothing better to do than to personally design each snowflake that falls. However, God most likely set Crystallization Dynamics in place. Con still has not offered a compelling argument for why a completely natural process can create order. The argument still boils down to a circular one: We know that nature produces order because we see order in nature. By why suppose naturalism rather than a Designer who created this with a purpose? A Designer seems more reasonable. To presuppose no Designer, yet not have an explanation for how nature alone can produce order, seems like begging the question to me. Con did offer a suggestion, but here's the caveat: How does his explanation that non-intelligent processes create order by working through consistent causes and effects, consistency creating patterns, and patterns creating order explain the universe? During the Big Bang which created it all, it was a major explosion which is said to have created the universe, producing order. But there were no natural laws before that, no consistency to work through. So how did it create an ordered universe? Additionally, how did the first snowflake develop that led to the consistency of producing other snowflakes? Let me expand on my explanation of Con's webpage. It's true that a constant stream of 0-9's are just as likely as any other, but believing in natural processes would be believing that not only is our state of affairs just as likely as any other, but that a natural process created the universe in just the right way for our continued survival. In essence, our webpage came up 0-9's all the way through. To put it another way, if I destroyed a perfectly good Rolex watch, put it in a paper bag, and shook it up for billions of years, what are the chances I would pull out a fully-functioning Rolex watch, ticking and on time? We have animals that are not sentient on our planet, and so far have not discovered any others on any other planets (save bacteria). So it is just as likely that no other planets have non-sentient life, as it is that planets have sentient life. It is true that we're merely dealing in probability here, but isn't that all we can prove? We can't prove with 100% certainty whether God exists or doesn't exist. All we can show is whether God's existence is probable or not. I confess I don't keep up on Evolutionary theory, and if I've misspoken then Con is free to correct me as I would enjoy learning more about it (Evolutionary theory is much different from when I learned it in school). I personally don't believe Evolution happened, but for the sake of this debate I will assume that it did. After all, there are Theistic Evolutionists. Regarding colliding universes, and as much as I love the Mario games and Star Wars (though I'm a bigger Trekkie), the fact alone that they're fictional shows that Con's analogy doesn't hold up. The universes could collide (either in a crossover or in a catastrophic event) if an author so choose, or they wouldn't collide if an author so chose. However, in reality we would have no control over whether or not other universes, if they exist, would collide with ours. And if there are other universes, and have been billions of years in time, then why hasn't another universe collided with ours? It seems likely that they would. After all, our own Milky Way Galaxy is on a collision course for the Andromeda Galaxy. If it can happen in our own universe, why can't it happen with other universes? The reality is we have no reason to suppose that other universes exist. It makes for great science fiction and it may help to explain certain scientific laws, but there is no proof. We have good solid reasons for believing in God's existence. Even if we can't prove it to within 100% accuracy, God has left clues for us to point to his existence. Without any evidence to the contrary, the existence of other universes is merely conjecture, nothing more. Thank you again, HonestDiscussioner, for your time in debating this with me.