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

Going into the last round I will try to summarize some of my main points I have been making to negate Pros argument. Unsupported assertions by Pro "If there is no intelligent force behind the design in the universe, it is illogical to propose that chance would be responsible for all the order we see. "Why is it illogical ? cause Pro says so ? Pro may not like it, but that's a far cry from being "illogical". Pro says. .. "I have established the existence of God is more probable than the non-existence of God. "If by established you mean your own unsupported assertion then sure. Pro says. .. "The immense improbability of the universe resulting from chance proves that even having a "lack of background information," it is reasonable to suppose that the universe had a designer. "If by reasonable you mean arguing from ignorance then sure. Drawing conclusions based on ignorance, take that science ! !! Not to mention the WAP and observer selection bias points I have been making. Pro fabricates quotationsPro says. .. "Con can only say, "just because we can't prove it, we should just accept it because it's better than believing in an intelligent designer. "Pro just makes crap up and then put it in quotes as if I said it. Am I surprised ? no, cause if he is willing to mis-quote Stephen Hawking he isn't going to have any problem putting me in unsaid quotes. Disgraceful conduct by Pro. I guess this is what happens when you bring out a hidden unproven assumption in pros argument, he doesn't take to kindly to that. Pro says. .. "I have already shown justification for 1b. If smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer, then why don't larger, more complex things? "No you haven't justified "1b) Anything more complex than a watch/building requires an intelligent designer". In order to justify 1b, you use your argument which already assumes this assumption. .. circular reasoning. Is purpose of your question to shift the burden ? I hope you don't think that when some one shows a hidden unsupported premise in your argument that your right until proven wrong . You can't justify 1b) thus your argument doesn't follow with logical necessity. Pro attacks evolution/Non random does not equal intelligent designPro sets himself an easy target by saying well the evolutionist could say this the evolutionist could say that. Trouble is the outcome of evolution is anything but random, natural selection plays it part in not making all combinations equally probably, this is not pure randomness. Just like the universe argument, Pro wants to dump on randomness then once he is done refuting it say, well then, intelligent design it is. It sets up a false dilemma, randomness or intelligent design, the true dilemma for the universe or humans is intelligent design or non intelligent design. Refuting pure randomness does not equal therefore intelligent design. Pro presents new argument in round 5 Moses/Messiah & The BibleSeriously ? Am I supposed to now argue in the last round against the proposition of divine revelation as contained in the bible or any other document ? I don't think so. Chance is not the same thing as randomnessPro says. .. "All of the evidence says that the universe is too small and too young to permit the random assembly of life, even in a simple form. "That's nice, what about non randomness ? After all chance is not the same as randomness. No logical necessity shown that the universe/humans must be intelligently designed. Pro tried to invoke complexity and size and argument from analogy such as using watches to prove the complexity of the universe/humans means it must require intelligent design. After all this Pro retorts. .. "Con has not shown why you can't infer intelligent design based on size and complexity, which is highlight by his inability to respond to my arguments"WOW, the scary thing is in Pros mind I bet he truly believes that, but do you ? Pro doesn't know the probability of an intelligent designPro can dump on randomness or non intelligent design all day long, but he never tells us the probability of intelligent design of say a horse, until then he can't say if something is more or less probable than the other. False gambling type argumentsPro tries to use a false gambler type argument of beating the odds and our existence and/or the universe is beating the odds and as such we should infer that this was a set up (intended to be like this) just like the gambler and his amazing beating of the odds. But what I showed is that this doesn't work due to the WAP and necessary pre-conditions of human observation and lack of background information and low probability in of its self doesn't prove intent. Pro doesn't deal with these issues at all, he just butchers the WAP then repeats the astronomical low odds of it all and proclaims repeatedly it was probably intelligently designed. I even showed this type of faulty gambling type reasoning when its come to necessary pre-conditions of the observer such as Pro himself. I merely repeat what I said in the last round. .. "think of all the things that had to go right for Pro to exist with us today. Not only the things he has mentioned but then add to that all the world events and his own family tree, if just one thing had gone wrong he would not be with us today, what are the odds ! !! they are astronomical ! !! It was pre-planned. .. I think we have heard this one before. At this point hopefully, the readers if not Pro would appreciate, yeah I get that the odds are beyond comprehension but your arguing from a position where had not those events happened you wouldn't be here to ponder the astronomical odds of your own existence has Pro accounted for these preconditions which create a bias in his data and his probability argument ? He hasn't, its a faulty gambler overcoming the odds type reasoning, what are the odds eh ? the outcome was pre-planned. "No good reason to justify that the universe /humans are or more probably intelligently designedI submit without any kind of logical necessity proved or proper probability argument here its just Pro preying on peoples incredulity, it's just easier to believe that the universe/human life is the product of intelligent design. I don't contest that its "easier" to just believe its intelligent design, I don't contest that its easier to just say "God did it" and be done with it. I submit that Pros can't justify that intelligent design is more probable than non intelligent design as its incredulity masked as probability. And last but not least, you will recall that I bought up the point that 99.9% of species on earth have become extinct and the last thing you would infer from this fact is that an omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly benevolent God has designed our world.