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

Correction: GodAlthough I mentioned it in the comments, in case Pro didn't see it, I wanted benevolent as part of definition for God.Opening commentsI thank Pro for their opening argument.In Pros argument they bring up certain facts, like the fact that humans make paintings and watches, and facts about had things being different life or at least life as we know it would not exist. Facts such as these are not in dispute, but rather its the reasoning that Pro and other advocates of intelligent/intentional design use in order to conclude in some sort of intelligent/intentional design that is in dispute. Now it should go without saying, but to prove intelligent/intentional design of humans or even the universe it can't merely be assumed as a prior that such things are intelligently/intentionally designed.An intelligent Designer of the universe and/or humans does not equal TheismChristopher Hitchens makes the point here in a debate with William Craig at Biola University... "if there was an entity that was responsible for the beginning of the cosmos, and that also happened to be busily engineering the very laborious product—production of life on our little planet, it still wouldn't prove that this entity cared about us, answered prayers, cared what church we went to, or whether we went to one at all, cared who we had sex with or in what position or by what means, cared what we ate or on what day, cared whether we lived or died. There's no reason at all why this entity isn't completely indifferent to us. That you cannot get from deism to theism except by a series of extraordinarily generous, to yourself, assumptions." [1] AnthropomorphismAs Wikipedia explains... "Anthropomorphism is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities." [2] With this in mind this should at least set off a red flag, and I propose we should be mindful of this this tendency in regards to any proposition that the universe/humans are intelligently designed. Pros first premise is A false dilemmaWikipedia explains a false dilema as such... "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.." [3] Pros first premise says..."The universe resulted either from design or chance." When Pro says "design" in this premise, they must mean intelligent/intentional design.As a general rule, if some one presents two options and it is anything other than (X or not X), then chances are there is a false dilemma in there. For example either I am in (Australia) or (not in Australia) is a true dilemma as opposed to either I am in Australia or in Africa is a false dilemma.The true dilemma isn't between intelligent/intentional design or chance its between intelligent/intentional design or non intelligent/intentional design. As such Pros first argument is logically invalid and can be rejected. An example of this type of argument that doesn't commit the false dilemma fallacy would be the following......1) Either the universe is the result of intelligent design or non intelligent design2) The universe did not result from non intelligent designC) Therefore the universe is the result of intelligent designImprobable events happen all the time1) Improbable event X is followed by improbable event Y which results in outcome ZC) Therefore outcome Z was intentionalIts a Non sequitur, you can't claim that something was intentional based on low probability or a series of low probability events alone.All this done, with you and me in mindPro likes to point out how if things had been different we would not be here. Its not the facts, its what conclusions that Pro is inferring that is the problem.1) If X,Y,Z etc had not happened we would not be hereC) Therefore we are the product of intentThere is a danger of vanity here, well golly it must be that all of this happend with us in mind. It should be pointed out that things are not "perfect" for us, life as we know it can exist with a certain range of variables, and who knows about the range for life we don't know about or potential life we don't know about.But as a strict matter of logic again, its a non sequitur.Weak anthropic principleKyle Kelly explains the (WAP) as such... "The idea that we must observe that the universe contains properties compatible with the existence of an observer because if it did not, no one would be here to observe it, is called the anthropic principle or the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). The WAP is significant in that it makes the improbability of any one universe (i.e. our own) irrelevant. We should expect that our universe has features compatible with our existence, since, after all, we exist." [4] Paintings, Buildings, Watches and the Universe Consider the following argument.......1) Paintings are intelligently designed by humans2) Buildings are intelligently designed by humans3) Watches are intelligently designed by humansC) Therefore the universe (or humans) was intelligently designedFirst appreciate what a complete non sequitur it is. Listing every human designed object ever made in no ways even remotely suggests that the universe or humans was intelligently designed yet alone by a God.Size Pro says...."If a painting requires a painter, and a building a builder, how much more would a complex and huge universe require a designer?According to this type of reasoning where big = intelligently designed and thus small = not intelligently designed, a tic tac which compared to a universe is much much smaller is not intelligently designed, but we know this to be false. Ergo size can't be used as an inference to detect intelligent/intentional design.ComplexityConsider the following argument.........1) A watch/building is complex and intelligently designed by humans2) A human is complexC) Therefore a human is intelligently/intentionally designedOnce again as a strict matter of logic it doesn't follow. Now consider the following argument.....1) Complexity can only happen from intelligent/intentional cause/s2) Humans are complexC) Therefore humans are the result of intelligent/intentional cause/sNow I agree that premise 2 is true, but what about premise 1 ?The problem with the watch/building etc + complexity argument is it assumes that the universe or life is put together in the same kind of way as a watch is, and of course we wouldn't accept the proposition that a watch is created absent an intelligent/intentional cause, but we know this as a posteriori, then the argument quite fallaciously says well we can conclude that a the universe or life can't exist absent an intelligent cause/s.Wikichariorts explains... "It is essentially tantamount to the statement "I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God did it!" It's also begging the question as to whether something can be too complex for evolution, at all. How would we know whether something is too complex without a sampling of confirmed examples contrasting natural low-complexity cases versus supernatural high-complexity cases?" [5] I havn't addressed everything I wanted too but I am running out of space, but hey we got 3 more rounds. I look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com.au...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.infidels.org...[5] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...