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

Pro certainly has not refuted the TAG, and he has certainly not shown that it should never be used again. The argument is certainly not dishonest. It is a perfectly logically valid and sound argument.The majority of Pro’s argument seems based on verbal abuse than on actual reasoning, which is unfortunate consider he alleges that he is interested in philosophy. The ethical way to do philosophy is to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect. His contention that Dr. Craig is a “consummate idiot and huckster” is unfounded, considering he has a Ph.D. and two M.A.’s. You may not appreciate his arguments, but he is certainly not an idiot. Besides, Pro has given no indication that he even understands the subject matter at question (and didn’t source anything in his opening argument).Let’s talk sources for a minute. I am using actual scholars to support my arguments (Dr. Craig, Dr. Geisler, and Dr. Jastrow). Pro used two sources from Wikipedia (which anyone can edit), Douglas Adams (who is a writer, not a scholar by any means, and certainly not the intellectual superior of the scholars I quoted from), and one webpage from Dr. Hawking, a brilliant physicist but a lousy philosopher. I do apologize that my links didn’t work. All you have to do is click the links, then type either “Theistic Critiques of Atheism” or “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle” into the search bar and those two articles, which I used as my sources, will be the first article that pops up (after the respective search).I’m also not sure Pro read my argument very carefully. Craig didn’t quote from Huxley, Geisler did.Pro’s case, apart from abuse, is built on red herrings and imagined fallacies. I’ll rebut his opening argument, then his second one.His statement, “as there can never be external context to the universe, however, it seems to be an open and shut case against the TAG,” is a classic case of begging the question in favor of naturalism. The TAG is proposed specifically to decide if there is a Designer. If God exists, then he exists externally to the universe.Arguments like the TAG are designed specifically to avoid infinite regress. Without God, you are left with an infinite regress of causes. But Theism posits that there is a Being who exists necessarily, a “first cause,” if you will, so as to avoid the problem of infinite regress which Atheism can’t avoid. 1. Complexity does not imply a designer, and agency does not imply complexity.If complexity does not imply a designer, then why is SETI set up to look for intelligent life? If they found a complex structure on another planet, do you honestly think SETI won’t consider that evidence for intelligent life?As Dr. Craig informs us, the cutting edge of Christian apologists today do not argue from design, but from the fine-tuning of the universe. I set out the argument I will be defending right from the start. Unfortunately, most of Pro’s opening argument is nothing more than a red herring. I am not arguing from design but from fine-tuning. Incidentally, parts a-d can be rejected as irrelevant to a critique of the argument.As for part e, Pro’s assertion that there is a lot of “wiggle room” in the constants of the universe that would allow for life is simply false. I have supported my arguments with a scholarly article (which you could search and find quite easily on the website). Pro accuses me of making an “argument from ignorance,” but that’s exactly what he does by positing that it is “plausible that some other form of self-replicating adapters might exist in many other universes.” He has not supported a contention that there are other universes, and using “it’s possible” is not an argument against the fine-tuning in this universe.His contention that the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life is true, of course, but does nothing to refute this argument. We have an environment perfectly suited for human life, here on this planet.The TAG is not an argument from ignorance. In fact, the first premise examines the three possibilities of how the universe could have arisen. The argument rejects necessity and chance and arrives at design.2. The TAG engages special pleading.Nor is it a case of special pleading, for the same reason. If the only alternatives are physical necessity, chance, or design, and physical necessity or chance don’t account for the universe, then it must be by design.Also his question of “who designed the designer” is simply not a good response. One does not need an explanation of the explanation to know the explanation is true. For example, if a primitive culture unearthed arrowheads and other trinkets, they would not have to have knowledge of Native American tribes to know that someone designed them.Regarding his previous argument:Pro’s argument from the rock is, again, a red herring. His arguments show that he really doesn’t even understand the TAG (especially as Dr. Craig has formulated it), bringing into serious question Pro’s comment as to the intelligence of Dr. Craig.Pro’s argument of “nu-uh,” trying to show that I’m begging the question is simply incorrect. I have shown that the argument from physical necessity begs the question, but I have used reasoned arguments to show that the best possibility is from design, as per the premises in the TAG. I have never stated that we are here so the universe is specifically adapted for our being here. That’s the argument from physical necessity. My argument is that if physical necessity or chance doesn’t explain our being here, design does.My quote on Evolution is not invalid. The odds of Evolution occurring by itself (through chance) are so astronomical as to be essentially nil. So if Evolution happened, it’s only further evidence that God exists, not evidence against his existence.Pro still seems to be arguing from physical necessity (chances of our evolution are low, but yet this is the set that was made) is still begging the question. It’s arguing in a circle. We only know this is the set that was made because we are here. We are here so this is the set we are made. Yes, the chances are low, but as Pro doesn’t seem to understand, they are astronomically low. There’s absolutely no way these things could have arisen without outside intervention.Pro’s assertion that the three-dimensionality of the universe is an argument from incredulity is simply untrue. We know that there are three-dimensions (height, width, and depth). You can’t dismiss that by saying “we don’t know how many there are.” I am arguing from the dimensions that we do know, and because of these dimensions life is permitted in this universe.ConclusionPro’s entire case is built on verbal abuse, red herrings, and imagined fallacies. He has not refuted the TAG, nor has he established that it should never be used again. In fact, he doesn’t really even understand the argument, which is painfully evidence. The TAG stands strong as a sound argument for God’s existence.