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

I wish to thank CON for his prompt response.Because I wish to address CON’s argument in a coherent way, I will focus first on his arguments and then only later on his sources, all of which are unable to support his conclusion.To make my points here, I will draw heavily upon counter-example: That of an unassuming piece of rock, made of quartz and feldspar. In my initial example, it is an object of roughly 10^22 molecules for a rock weighing an ounce, and to correct my initial argument, 9*10^23 fundamental particles. Not only may this bit of rock have been made smaller in mass by 10^22 different gradations (or larger in many more), but the orientation of the molecules and crystals that they form are incalculably variable, and even the variability of the overall shape is staggeringly huge. The odds of this rock being as it is are astronomically low, but every day rocks form as a consequent of what are apparently dumb forces, lacking intelligent agency or fine-tuning of any kind, each with such staggeringly low odds of being as it is.On physical necessity and chanceCON’s case in this matter is nonsensical. It is a simple thing to deduct that if he claims the anthropic principle that fine tuning by design necessitates our existence, then he too is claiming we are here because we must be here, and he is by his own (fallacious) logic also begging the question and arguing in a circle. Rather, I would pose that existence itself is tautological, and there is no fallacy in saying “it is certain I exist”, as there are indeed self-evident truths.As stated in my opening argument, it is a fallacious claim to say that just because we are here that the universe is specifically adapted towards us being here. It is mere assertion to state that it could not have been any other way, suffering from the fallacy of “argument from incredulity”. Only in universes where life arises does life have the opportunity to muse that the universe may be specifically adapted to produce that life.I will look now to my rock. If the universe it is a part of is itself deterministic, then it is as it is out of physical necessity, and that DOES explain why the traits of the rock are there. If it arises in a non-deterministic universe, despite the randomness which produced it in its current form, what happened is simply what happened, and its traits are self-evidently the product of chance. Finally, because there is no way to know whether it is a deterministic or non-deterministic universe, it is rational to simply treat it as if it were due to chance, and in any case it is still the product of dumb forces.Evolution is not “chance”First I would like to note that my opponent’s source on the subject of evolution is invalid, as will be discussed later. His discussion of long odds and chance is silly. Evolution is in fact a necessary trait of any system of mutating self-replicators, by which the specific mutations arise by chance and in which the individuals may be destroyed by environmental factors or preserved by traits of the individual.The second problem with my opponent’s argument is in fact that evolution does not act with intent, and that all new traits are only incidentally useful, and no such mutations (except perhaps those introduced by viruses or external genetic modification) are accomplished by the intent of any such agent. The odds of our specific evolution are low, but again like the rock, a set of organisms was produced, and THIS is the set that happened to be made. Certainly if things had been different, different life would have been produced; it is up to my opponent to show that NO life could have happened if not specifically this life.There is no basis CON’s assertions about particular physicsSimply put, our universe is certainly not 3-dimensional nor is life necessarily exclusive to the dimensionality our universe does have. As it stands we do not know how many dimensions the universe possesses, spatial, temporal, or otherwise [1][2]. It is again an argument from incredulity to say life could not be in other dimensionalities.I must note that his argument is further flawed as that many (and perhaps all but one) of the fundamental values of the forces of our universe are possibly consequent to other phenomena, and without a theory of quantum gravity it cannot be said in either direction that our universe has any particular number of arbitrary constants or that it does not. There is no basis for the declaration that the fundamental “constants” CAN be different from what they are now, and as such the TAG cannot be honestly made.Not DesignAs I outlined in my initial argument and from my example of the rock, just because some thing is complex does not imply that it was designed for that complexity. It is not at all apparent that the factors of our universe fail to be consequential to some primary factor or are otherwise unnecessary or that they are unable to have arisen from chance. It is astronomically unlikely that the rock ends up in the way that it does, however it still happens due to what is apparently blind and purposeless chance.CON’s SourcesTo address CON’s second and third sources there are various different anthropic principles. The Strong Anthropic Principle proposed by CON is a begging of the question. Does the puddle fit the hole, or does the hole fit to the puddle? Indeed Douglas Adams seems to be the intellectual superior to Norm L. Geisler and Robert Jastrow in identifying that the puddle in fact formed to fit the hole [3], and by analogy that life evolved to fit some environment in the universe and not the other way around.Next, CON’s statement that ”[I]f there were even the slightest variation...no life of any kind would exist,” it is simultaneously a bare assertion, an argument from incredulity [4], unsupported by any source; CON’s link is dead and he provided no specific source information.On Julian Huxley, he wrote the book quoted during or before 1953. This was one year or less after the hereditary nature of DNA was confirmed, and before the double-helix nature of DNA had been discovered. Without this knowledge, how could he possibly make any ascertainment of how probable mutation or evolution by “chance” was? He didn’t even have a hope of possibly knowing how it actually happens!This brings me to William Lane Craig, consummate idiot and huckster. In almost every way that he can be abusive of science, he manages to be. He vomits gibberish and quote mines to affirm his faulty views. We know nothing of how the constants came to be as they are, but this does not mean that they are arbitrary. Nothing happening before 1 Planck Time known in physics. The proper position for honest people is “we do not know how the ‘constants’ came to be what they are, OR if they could be different”, and it will be that way until a coherent theory of quantum gravity is discovered. Further, he makes an unacceptable argument from ignorance in his statement that the majority of other possible values preclude life as he cannot know what values are possible, nor the results of those values absent a universe simulator. From observation of his quotation of Huxley, Craig demonstrates a marked disregard for intellectual honesty. From his established track record, every claim made by Craig warrants the utmost scrutiny.ConclusionAll of CON’s arguments stand refuted. All of his sources lay in shambles. I look forward to CON’s rebuttal of my initial argument, and continue to stand by those initial arguments.Bibliography[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk...[3] Adams, D. (2002). The salmon of doubt: hitchhiking the galaxy one last time. Crown. Quoation available at http://www.goodreads.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...