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

Over the course of this debate, CON has failed to demonstrate the validity of the TAG. It is important to note that the validity of an argument is whether the argument stands scrutiny of reason, not whether or not the source is recognized as an “authority” on the topic. The rules of this debate establish that argument from authority is not to be tolerated. CON’s claims that the TAG is a valid support for the premise that god(s) exist is entirely without reliable support.He claims that “The ethical way to do philosophy is to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt”, and I have done that. I have given him every skeptical scrutiny I can muster, and his arguments have fallen flat. I will let the voters determine who they think has the most reputable and accurate sources, particularly on matters of science, between the combination of a Wikipedia article with contemporary primary research cited plus a renowned physicist who has published books and papers which support his theories OR a philosopher who is too lazy to ask whether any of his claims are even consistent with the body of modern evidence.Let us ask for a moment if the argument against the strong anthropic principle made by Adams is well reasoned: Does the puddle shape to the form of its world, or does the world shape to the form of the puddle? It is ridiculous to think that the world was made for the life in it because such a claim suffers from selection bias. I showed why Crag et. al. were unreliable. CON merely asserted it of my own sources.Con asserts (wrongly) that “Without God, you are left with an infinite regress of causes.” however Naturalism has no problem with infinite regress of causes. Only the theist has such a problem. Further, If there might be a being that is self-causing, it is special pleading to pose that the universe cannot also be such an identity but that the external being can. In short, I have no problem with infinite regress of causality, nor with a self-caused universe, but if CON wishes to argue that point he will have to engage me on the KCA.1. Complexity does not imply a designer, and agency does not imply complexity.“[W]hy is SETI set up to look for intelligent life?”Because SETI is looking for life resembling our own, set against the context of human life. Otherwise, it would be pseudo-science and worthless speculation.“If they found a complex structure on another planet, do you honestly think SETI won’t consider that evidence for intelligent life?”They would not. If this structure resembles the structures humans make, then and only then may it constitute such evidence; otherwise it is just worthless speculation.CON made the contention that the complexity of life and the universe (or some object(s) or event(s) in it) imply astronomical odds, and that astronomical odds imply “fine tuning”. Again I go back to the question posed by Douglas Adams. We cannot know one way or the other with the universe, and honest position is “we cannot know”.An argument from ignorance is “We cannot know between X or Y, therefore (X or Y)”. CON has argued that even though we cannot know that other life is possible therefore life is impossible. Con’s form clearly falls into the form of an argument from ignorance, whereas my form is “We cannot know X or Y, therefore declarations of X or Y are invalid”. This is neither fallacious nor an argument from ignorance. Any claim that life is either possible or impossible for other possible universes, or that other universes are not possible is entirely untenable.Finally, he presents design as different from chance or necessity when it is still either chance or necessity even in the case of design, depending on whether the proposed designer exists in a deterministic or non-deterministic super-universe. 2. The TAG engages special pleading.It is not a request for “an explanation of the explanation” to request one side to adequately account for a prediction made by an argument which is hostile to the goals of the person arguing. CON has already made the implication that he has a problem with infinite regress, however his own hypothesis apparently predicts infinite regress: If the greatness of men must come from greater gods, then the gods’ greatness must come from something greater still.As such, it is not an explanation of the explanation which I demand but rather a squaring of the implications attached to his explanations with his original premise! Either he must admit that there are god(s) which created his god(s), that there is an infinite regress that he is hostile to, OR produce some evidence or a metaphysical reason as to why this is not the case. He has failed, and thus has failed to support his BOP3. The rock ROCKS!I will gladly let the voters decide whether or not my rock speaks to CON’s argument or not; I reason that it does, as the argument presented by CON is itself reliant on the exclusion of long odds being possible absent divine intent, particularly given CON’s quote here:“The odds of Evolution occurring by itself (through chance) are so astronomical as to be essentially nil. So if Evolution happened, it’s only further evidence that God exists, not evidence against his existence.” (emphasis mine)I can only assume that by “evolution occurring by itself through chance” that he refers to our specific evolution, as whether or not evolution happens is not the subject of this debate, and he has failed to support any other interpretation. As my rock shows, a specific outcome among myriad outcomes happening can and does happen through dumb forces!The only reason I have not calculated the specific odds against my rock is that ~10^22 molecules divided between two chemicals (SiO2 and KAlSi3O8) solely as a binary representation entirely disregarding gross form and crystallization pattern is 2^(10^22), which is 103010299956639811952138 : 1 odds against! If this is not astronomical odds against a specific outcome, I do not know what is! Again I must argue that long odds do not imply intent for the outcome, and chance or necessity are sufficient for those astronomical odds in a result to be explained!3. ConclusionTo reiterate my core argument in succinct form: Traits do not imply meta-traits; only CONTEXT in a larger system allows discernment of meta-traits. Otherwise, they would be just traits. Fine tuning is a meta-trait (a trait describing something using external context). Therefore the specific outcome of our universe (its observable traits) does not imply fine tuning OR not-fine-tuning (which are meta-traits). CON has failed to bring adequate challenge to this central metaphysical truth; The existence of a FIVE does not imply that the extant FIVE was in fact reached by the combining of TWO and THREE, nor does the existence of (universe) imply that (universe) was reached by (design processes). Knowing more requires the ability to observe outside the universe. CON has provided no reliable evidence that he can do so, and thus this argument stands.Astronomical odds against an outcome do not imply fine-tuning or not-fine-tuning; a rock is not fine-tuned, but despite the apparent astronomical odds against the rock being as it is, it DOES arise either by chance or necessity; no design is required, nor is it precluded.Just because the laws of the universe allow life does not imply that there is outside purpose involved or that there is an absence of such outside purpose. It is apparently incidental, as incidental functionality is consistent with metaphysics, a point which CON did not adequately refute.CON never actually satisfied his burden of proof against special pleading, he merely asserted his burden does not exist.CON dropped many points which outright invalidate the TAG.CON failed to adequately defend his sources, nor invalidate my own.The TAG has been shown as unable to support ANY premise, and thus it should not be used to support a premise ever again.