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

As per the rules, I will not offer a rebuttal of his argument in this round. I will use this round to support the argument, then rebut his opening argument in the next round. As I indicated last round, this is the form of the argument I will be defending:1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, design, or chance.2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.3) Therefore, it is due to design. (see round one for source)Premise one -- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, design, or chance. This is self-explanatory, and I don't feel it needs any arguments to support it. This simply lists the three possible alternatives that could account for the existence of our universe. Premise two -- It is not due to physical necessity or chance. What is meant by "fine-tuning"? William Lane Craig explains,"The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants, such as the gravitational constant, whose values are independent of the laws themselves; moreover, there are certain arbitrary quantities which are simply put in as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the initial low entropy condition of the universe. By "fine-tuning" one means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. " [1]The anthropic principle states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. [2] As agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow noted, the universe is amazingly preadapted to the eventual appearance of humanity. [3] For if there were even the slightest variation at the moment of the Big Bang, making conditions different, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. [4]So what can account for the sheer near impossibility that life would have arisen in our universe? Physical necessity? Claiming that we are here because we must be here begs the question because it argues in a circle. We are here. So the universe must have adapted itself for our survival; it couldn't have arisen any other way. But how do we know that? Because we are here. So physical necessity can not be used to explain how we are here. There is no reason that, given a completely random universe, it could not have resulted in a different, non-life-permitting universe. Chance? This is highly improbable. The odds are astronomically stacked against it, in fact. Julian Huxley, an arch-defender of Evolution, estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the ods against evolution happening by pure chance are 1 followed by 3 million zeros (fifteen hundred pages of zeros) to one. [5] Additionally, there are quite a lot of factors in our universe that have to be "just so," otherwise life would be impossible. There are so many of these factors that I couldn't possibly give them all here. A few examples include:The fact that our universe exists in three dimensions. It is due to its basic three-dimensionality that the world possesses the chemistry that it does, which furnishes some key conditions necessary for the existence of life. We don't know why the universe possesses three dimension, but if it didn't then we wouldn't exist to ask that question. [6]Additionally, the values of the various forces of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. One example would be that if the strong force of nature were increased as much as 1%, nuclear resonance levels would be so altered that almost all carbon would be burned into oxygen; an increase of 2% would preclude formation of protons out of quarks, preventing the existence of atoms. Furthermore, weakening the strong force by as much as 5% would unbind deuteron, which is essential to stellar nucleosynthesis, leading to a universe composed only of hydrogen. It has been estimated that the strong force must be within 0.8 and 1.2 its actual strength or all elements of atomic weight greater than four would not have formed. And so on. It is simply not at all likely that the universe could have resulted from chance. Design? Design seems to be the more plausible explanation, when all factors of the state of our universe are taken into account. Conclusion -- Therefore, it is due to design. To reiterate, there are only three alternatives -- that our universe was fine-tuned by physical necessity, chance, or design. There is no reason to suppose physical necessity; in fact, doing so begs the question. The odds against chance are so astronomical as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. The only possibility is that our universe is the result of design. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal. [1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;[2] Norm L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 2000, p. 27. [3] Robert Jastrow, "A Scientist Caught," as noted in ibid, p. 26. [4] ibid. [5] Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, as quoted in ibid. , p. 718. [6] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;[7] ibid. See the article for more evidence on fine-tuning.