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

Pro has not demonstrated any flaws in the TAG, and he has certainly not demonstrated that it should never be used again. Failing in only one of these counts would lose Pro the debate, but he has failed at both.I have not failed to demonstrate the validity of the TAG. It is a perfectly valid argument (in that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises). I have also demonstrated that it is a sound argument, and Pro has not refuted my support for the argument (for example, how the values of the various forces of nature are very much fine-tuned for life to exist). He did try to argue from design, but the form of the TAG I was supporting (which I mentioned right from the start) is an argument from fine-tuning, which is what modern Christian theologians argue from. As such, I extend my arguments.Pro is simply incorrect that the validity of an argument is whether the argument stands scrutiny of reason. It is a logically valid argument, and I have demonstrated its soundness (which Pro confuses for validity). Pro accuses me of making an argument from authority, which ignoring his own argument from authority (using a non-authority, Douglas Adams, as support of his argument). I have used actual scholars in the relevant fields, and explained how their arguments support the TAG. Pro has made a fallacious argument from authority, not me.In fact, it’s even quite ironic that Pro would quote Dr. Hawking, since Hawking recognizes the fine tuning in the universe: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron...The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” [1] So to deny fine-tuning goes against modern scientific research. I have plainly demonstrated that the reason for the fine-tuning in the universe is more adequately explained by design, rather than chance or physical necessity. Pro has not refuted this. Also, I have supported my arguments with quotes from scholars, and Pro has not (except for the aforementioned dubious sources).It is a simple fact of science that if numerous items in our universe were slightly different, life would not have arisen. Life would not have “evolved” or “adapted” to fit the universe; life would not have arisen at all. We didn’t “grow” to fit the “puddle,” everything our life needed was there from the start.The Atheist has a problem with infinite regress, in that an actual infinite cannot exist. But that is beyond the scope of this debate to argue for. Pro’s contention that we require an explanation of the explanation is just plain ridiculous, as I have shown. Also, not all Theists have a problem with infinite regress. Thomas Aquinas’ First Way argues for a First Cause, admitting the possibility that the universe has existed eternally. However, since Pro seems to care about modern science, his statement that “naturalism has no problem with infinite regress of causes” is puzzling, since modern science has shown that the universe had a beginning (with the Big Bang). Incidentally, I told Pro that I would have rather debated the KCA with him (in the comments on another debate), but he insisted on the TAG.No Theist has ever argued that God was self-caused. I would urge Pro to actually read the arguments for himself, rather than relying on biased Atheists to argue against them (since Atheists rarely understand Theistic arguments properly).Point 1.Of course scientists are looking for structures that resemble our own. They wouldn’t be so foolish as to think aliens created natural structures, like rock or mountains. But they are looking for structures that were designed, because design points to a designer.My contention was that between the three possibilities of physical necessity, chance, or design, design is more likely. This is not an argument from ignorance, especially since a reasoned argument has been made.He then asserts that chance or necessity is still chance or necessity in the face of design, further demonstrating that he does not understand the argument.Point 2.My argument does not imply infinite regress, or special pleading, as I have already shown. It is even beyond the scope of this argument to show exactly who designed the universe, or that God was the “first cause” if he created the universe. All the TAG attempts to show is that the universe was more likely designed, than resulting from chance or physically necessity.This is why theologians, like William Lane Craig, make a cumulative case to prove that God exists, and the God who exists is the Christian God. If Pro wishes, I could debate him on exactly which God exists. But that’s not what the TAG hopes to established, just that the universe was fine-tuned for life, and that fine-tuning points to a fine-tuner.The rock does not speak to my argument, since the argument is from fine-tuning. Regardless of whether or not evolution could have arisen by chance, he did not refute my evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe.Pro is also being silly when he talks of the rock being a “long shot.” Ten to one odds is a long shot. Someone who bets on a horse with 10:1 odds against can justify it by the old adage “more risk equals more reward.” Odds of the magnitude Pro even admits are astronomical -- if there was a horse with that odds against them, you may as well bet on a horse that’s not even racing. Those odds are negligible -- they could not happen by chance.Conclusion.I have supported the TAG in spades, and Pro has done nothing to refute it (or to show that it should never be argued again). I mentioned from the out-set that the argument has been around since the ancient Greeks and popularized by Thomas Aquinas. I was correct in saying that Pro has offered no new evidence to show that the TAG is flawed and should never again be used. Additionally, Pro asserted that the TAG can't support any premise, which is demonstrably false. Premise one is obvious, that the fine-tuning in the universe resulted either from physical necessity, chance, or design. These are the three alternatives, and Pro did not attempt to add any other alternatives. This shows that he is arguing from bias, and not knowledge of what he was trying to debate about. I have also shown that premise two, that it did not result from physical necessity or chance, is also well-supported.Thank you for reading, and I hope you found the debate enjoyable.[1] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, (Bantam Books, 1988), p. 125. I owe my friend, Grace Dunlap, for bringing this quote to my attention.