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

I thank Con again for this debate.I would just like to reiterate that I have not moved the goal posts. I was arguing right from the get-go for the existence of God. It's even right there in the resolution.Premise 1I apologize if it seemed like I was rebuking. Con mentioned he withdrew his objection insofar as I explained my position further. I was just being thorough, I meant no disrespect.RandomnessI was not arguing against randomness. Atheism asserts that the universe resulted from chance, not from randomness (as far as I know). Con has not given any reason to suppose that my argument is incorrect. Chance is an undirected, unintelligent force. 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.Unsupported Assertions?Con asks me to prove my argument. In fact, I quoted an atheistic scientist, Julian Huxley, in round two which speaks to that effect. I even quoted Stephen Hawking to show that the universe appears to have been designed (although he rejects that there is, actually, a Designer). But if Con would like some more evidence, Fred Hoyle, a former atheist, when the possible combinations are taken into account, the chances that the first living cell could emerge without a Creator are about 1/10^40,000 [1]. The aforementioned Julian Huxley once calculated that the odds for the evolutoin of the horse were 1 in 1000^1,000,000. He admitted that no one would ever bet on anything so improbable. [2]Now, many evolutions say "given enough time, anything is possible," but this doesn't seem like a very scientific statement to me. However, has there been enough time? Suppose the entire universe were made of amino acids (which is far from the truth). There would be 10^77 molecules to work with. If we linked all these amino acids together at random at a rate of one per second for the widely accepted age of the universe (about 14.7 billion years), then the chances o fthat simple life form appearing shrink to 1/10^14.999,999,905. That's one in ten to the fifteen billionth power. Twenty billion years is just not long enough even if the universe were packed with the building blocks to produce life. [3]To counter this, an evolutionist might say, "but it only had to happen once. Being dealt a perfect bridge hand is a highly unlikely event too, but it has happened." This is true. It is possible, but is it probable? David Hume said, a wise man always proportions his belief to the evidence. 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. Following Hume's maxim, how can a wise man believe that life came about spontaneously and by chance when the evidence says that it is virtually impossible?On the other hand, what are the chances that Moses' record of creation just happened to put the events of creation in the right order? Suppose there are eight successive events (creation of the universe, light, water, atmosphere, seas and land, sea life, land animals, and man) which could have been put into any order. This is a simple permutation (8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1=40,320). Then the odds for Moses recording these events in the right order was only 1 in 40,320.Further, it has been calculated that there are 191 prophecies in the Old Testament abou tthe Messiah. These include where he would be born (Micah 5:2), how he would die (Isaiah 53), when he would die (Daniel 9), that he would rise from the dead (Psalm 16). The odds that fortey-eight of these prophecies were fulfilled in one man is about 1/10^157. That is a 1 with 157 zeros after it. If a gambler had managed to guess forty-eight horses right without a single mistake, it would be reasonable to suspect that he had inside information. Likewise, it is highly probable that the Old Testament prophets had some help to know so much about events that happened hundreds of years after their deaths. It is cetainly the reasonable thing to believe.Again, remember that this argument is based on probability, not on certitude.AnthropomorphismCon has nothing to add here, so I have nothing to respond to. I extend my point.All this done, with you and me in mind.You may not be able to prove intent, but this argument is based on probability. I have established the existence of God is more probable than the non-existence of God.Improbable Events Happen All the TimeWhile the immense probability may not prove intent, it does prove that it is less likely to occur than an event that is more likely to occur.The Probability of Intelligent DesignIn this round I have given the probability of Intelligent Design (see above). I have also firmly established that it is much more probable than chance.Lack of Background Information for UniversesThe 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. We see this from experience: smaller, less complex things need a designer. As such, so do larger, more complex things. Humans assign value to words. This is why if we see "I love Kylie" written in the clouds, we can assume a human did it. This actually proves my point. The wind didn't blow it that way, it was intelligently designed in the sky.Weak Anthropic PrincipleI explained how the Weak Anthropic Principle begs the question in round three. Feel free to go back and re-read it.You can't just look at nature and suppose things are the way they are because they "must have" turned out that way, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I'll re-iterate: This is circular reasoning. We are here because nature produces order. We know nature produces order because we are here. This begs the question. How do you know there isn't an intelligent designer that designed the universe to produce your specific form of life? You don't, and you can't prove nature did it alone with that argument. It could very well have screwed up and you not be there. There's no reason nature "had" to produce the necessary conditions for our life to exist.Observation Selection Effects Cause Bias in DataWhile it may be true that there were certain factors that allowed for my being here, this is quite different than saying the human race arose from chance. For example, I am here because my parents engaged in the sexual union which results in the creation of a new, unique human individual organism. Sexual organs, sperm and eggs were all designed to produce a new human being. However, the fact this happens doesn't explain how the human race could have resulted through chance, which had to have just the right combination of elements in order for humanity to first arise.Paintings, Buildings, Watches, and the UniverseCon 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. As such, I extend my arguments.I have already shown justification for 1b. If smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer, then why don't larger, more complex things? 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." But I have already shown why belief in an intelligent designer is more reasonable.I am low on characters, but I have shown ample reasons to justify premise 2 as well. I have shown that it is highly more probable to believe in an intelligent designer than in mere chance alone. [1] Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space.[2] Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action, pp. 45-46. [3] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 360.