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

I appreciate the opportunity my opponent has given me in debating this topic, and thank him for it.I must admit, I am a bit confused as to the arguments my opponent has made in his last response. It appears, to me at least, that he either missed or misunderstood a large portion of what I said.For example, my opponent begins by pointing out how if intelligent life was ever present on Mars, we'd see structures. For one, this is inaccurate, as any structures would have been buried under debris from the asteroid and from natural forces over billions of years, but that's besides the point. I never argued for intelligent life on Mars. Both Earth and Mars formed at about the same time, and the asteroid impact was quite a long time ago. There would not have been an opportunity for intelligent life to come into existence and so we shouldn't expect to see it.Then he responds to my reasons as to why we haven't seen other life in the galaxy yet, and again points out it would not erase all evidence of the race's existence. While this is true, we are talking about life in other solar systems, there would be no way to go see the evidence even if it was littered all over the planet. The point here is that there wouldn't be an intelligent species to contact us.I disagree with his assertion that if multiple races existed, at least one would want to interfere. While they may wish to, they may also be enlightened enough (having survived long enough to master space travel) to know that letting civilizations grow on their own is preferable to giving them a boost, so that they earn it. This is exactly how it works in Star Trek.His next point seems a bit contradictory. First he claims that if other species existed on other planets, we would not know it as we're moving too fast away from each other to contact the other. Then he says that doesn't explain why no other races exist. How does my opponent know they don't exist if he believes there is no way to honestly tell? Perhaps there are millions of other races in the galaxy and they have no way of reaching us.Then he admits that it is probable, I believe he meant possible, that life rare enough that it only appears once or twice in every galaxy, but then argues this is only speculation. However, this line of thinking began when he asked why we don't see more life in the galaxy if it isn't so improbable for it to come into existence. Since he admits there are good explanations for not having contacted other species yet, he original point fails.The next part of Pro's final argument I find the most confusing. He claims that he showed evolution to be mathemetically impossible in his opening argument, which he attempted to do using a quote from evolution proponent Julian Huxley. However I responded to this point, showing that Huxley was speaking of random mutation without natural selection, and that Huxley showed that by factoring in natural selection it was in no way improbable, but actually quite likely. My opponent had two separate opportunities to respond to my point about Huxley, and did not. He cannot argue that life developing here was a naturalistic miracle as his entire mathematical point about evolution rested upon Huxley.Now while my opponet admits that God probably doesn't craft each individual snow flake, he probably set Crystallization Dynamics in place. My opponent makes an interesting shift here, claiming I never gave a single reason why a natural process could create order. His original question, however, was how a natural process could create order, not why. I did show how, pointing to how Crystallization Dynamics creates ordered structures, and how energy being added to a system could create order in areas like chemistry. To answer why, I need only point again to the fact that consistent laws will lead to patterns, whatever the laws are, so the answer is that natural processes must produce order as natural processes are themselves ordered. Change the natural laws, and there will be a noticable affect, to be sure, but the consistency of the laws will cause a different order to emerge. Pro does attempt to counter this by pointing to the Big Bang, and the fact that "before the big bang, there were no laws". However, there is no such thing as "before the big bang", as time began at the Big Bang, which was an expansion of space-time and not an "explosion" as my opponent suggests (the "explosion" reference is rather popular and permates our culture, so I do not blame him for using this). You will hear physicist claim that the laws of physics did not exist in the state of affairs in which the unverse as we know it did not exist, however they don't mean there were no laws. We don't know what existed in a state of affairs without the universe, it could very well have been a completely different set of laws. Our ignorance here does not help Pro's case, as his case relies on there being absolutely nothing, which we cannot verify.I am quite confused at this question: "how did the first snowflake develop that led to the consistency of producing other snowflakes?" The first snowflake didn't lead to the consistency of other snowflakes. I'll just cite NOAA on this one:"These ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical (or patterned) because they reflect the internal order of the crystal’s water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces (known as “crystallization”) to form a six-sided snowflake. Ultimately, it is the temperature at which a crystal forms — and to a lesser extent the humidity of the air — that determines the basic shape of the ice crystal. Thus, we see long needle-like crystals at 23 degrees F and very flat plate-like crystals at 5 degrees F. " [1]Must everything be in perfect order to create snowflakes? As we know them, perhaps. Does that mean it was intelligently designed, or that Crystallization Dnyamics was designed? No. If water molecules were ordered differently, it would produce a different shape, no more or less special than the shape we know of. Had we lived in a universe with a different water molecule shape, we'd point out "if our water molecule wasn't so specifically designed, it could have wound up forming some weird six-sided snowflake instead of the perfect square one we know of".My opponent's next point merely assumes that there must be something actively keeping the laws of physics from changing. There is no reason to think that this is the case, rather that there is a cause and effect, and in order to change the effect of the same cause, you'd have to actively go and change the nature of cause.Then Pro uses the analogy of breaking a machine into peices and shaking the pieces up in a bag until they all come together to form the original watch. My opponent is again forgetting about natural selection. What if, as he shook the bag, if every time two peices that went together touched, they stayed together? It would be much easier to form that watch. This is very crude analogy to natural selection, but the closest one I can give for my opponent's example.As far as colliding universes are concerned, my point was that Pro is under the assumption that these other universes must be in the same spacial plane as ours. That is not the case, and most theories on multiple universes would make it so that universes do not collide with wach other.My opponent fiinishes by again asserting that we cannot prove multiple universes exist, but he has not addressed my point that in fact the burden of proof is on him to show that they can't exist. When doing probability, you must know how many "rolls" you get.My opponent has failed to establish any solid point that would make life improbable. He cannot determine any probabilities as he does not know the scope of existence. His citations of evolution remove natural selection from the equation, and has (possibily unknowingly) conceded a number of his own points. I implore you to vote Con.[1] http://www.noaa.gov...;