The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.

Rebuttal (1) Einstein: If you truly weren't trying to add validity to your argument by quoting Einstein, I apologize. That seemed to be the case and I needed to address it as it is commonly used as a creationist talking point Rebuttal (2) Physical evidence: The quote that stood out most to me in this 2nd point was: "If the entire universe came about through random chance, why are such rules unchanging?" Rules aren't unchanging, even laws aren't unchanging. That was the overarching point in my science vs religion segment. If a piece of credible evidence came into the mainstream challenging any popular scientific theory, they would be forced to analyze it with profound investigation. Also, random creation does not necessitate random laws. The laws/theories brought forth to explain these "random" creations (I use 'random' in quotations here because not all creation dictated by nature is 'random') are consolidated evidences brought upon by years of scientific research. For instance, the theory of the Big Bang is not subject to these "random laws" you speak of. Scientific theories cannot be proven outright, they can only be disproved. This means one would need to point out evidence to disprove the theory, not hypothetical circumstances in which the theory "may be" untrue. Also, my opponents assertion the "natural processes are a result of an intelligent designer deity" is simply a false attribution. This is because ANY natural process could be attributed to that ANY sort of metaphysical being. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Rebuttal (3) Psychological evidence: I really don't want to continue with this argument as I think it's more for hypothetical conversation rather than serious topics of debate. They are a statistical probability and anything beyond that is just a fun conversation to have. Whether humans WANT extraterrestrials or not is irrelevant to the debate. Rebuttal (4) Deity and science: This seems like a huge straw man fallacy to me. I never said that the scientists mentioned in the previous rebuttal were "Christians." I said that they were deists and that Christianity was rampant at the time in regards to the popular consensus. It still is popular in modern culture, but in regards to the time in which theses scientists were living, you could actually be convicted of serious crimes (including death) in challenging the religious doctrines of Christianity. Galileo did this by confirming the heliocentric theory (original hypothesis of this idea was by Copernicus) of the universe. This theory states that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the geocentric theory in which the Sun revolved around the Earth. Galileo was put on trial by the Inquisition in Rome for heresy. Rebuttal (5) Science and religion: The argument my opponent uses that we must have faith to believe that Gustave Eiffel built the Eiffel Tower is completely fallacious. We have historical evidence that Gustave had a company that proposed the design. You don't need science, you just need an ability to read historical documents. Gustave's company ( Eiffel et Compagnie) was the chosen winner of over 100 entries in the fair celebrating the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution. Actually, Gustave doesn't even deserve full credit, it was his structural engineer, Maurice Koechlin who fine-tuned the concept. I am digressing, let me fully address this "historical science/observational science" issue. The fact is, it isn't an issue. All science is a seamless mix of things we observe directly, and things we infer using natural laws extended into the realms of the past. Historical claims can be evaluated using modern scientific experiments (i.e. the formation of mountains). My opponents final argument is the assertion that we can't prove when the Earth was formed millions of years ago. Firstly, it was formed 4.6 billion years ago, not millions of years ago. We know this by using methods known as "radiometric" and "radiocarbon" dating. This measures the ratio between carbon-14 and carbon-12 isotopes in any once-living being. Scientists also know the half-life of the decay of certain elements like uranium-235 and can test for these elements on certain rocks. These methods have been replicated over and over again in laboratories and have been proven to accurately predict the timescale of certain geological events. See here for a simple overview of this process: http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov... To conclude, all of arguments have been tethered to my original position, naturalism. All knowledge falls within the pale of scientific investigation. There is no need for the natural world to have a designer deity artificially inserted into it. Ultimately, my opponents argument is severely wounded by infinite regress. Naturalism explains the world in a closed system, starting from a simple process. It is self-defeating to try to explain the complexity of the universe by invoking a creator of even greater complexity. This was a fun debate to make rebuttals against. I actually spent a good portion of my evening reading some of my own sources and my opponents. I learned some new information and it was very thought provoking. I look forward to his/her final argument. Sources: http://solar-center.stanford.edu... http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu... http://www.history.com... http://www.paris-eiffel-tower-news.com... http://ncse.com... http://burro.astr.cwru.edu... http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...