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

An intelligent Designer of the universe and/or humans does not equal TheismPro moved the goal postsPro doesn't have to prove the Christian God but he doesn't totally get off the hook here, I again refer to Pros own words. .. "The only plausible explanation for our existence is that the universe had a designer, God. "Pros first premise "P1) The universe resulted either from design or chance. "Pro rebukes me for my objection here. I did say last round I withdraw the objection, consider my objection here withdrawn. Randomness is not the same as Chance/a non-intelligent forceI'd like to point out that people not confuse "chance/a non intelligent force with "randomness" as the same thing. An object falling to the ground is not random as the outcome is affected by other externalities but it's not intelligent design either. Unsupported assertionsPro says. .. " It is, in fact, a mathematical impossibility for this entire universe to have resulted from chance and to be the way it is today" & "Our attributes were given to us by this Designer. "PROVE IT. AnthropomorphismNothing to add. All this done, with you and me in mindAs far as logic goes I just wanted to establish here that you you can't prove intent just because if x,y,z had not happened then we would not exist. Improbable events happen all the timeThe immense improbability of something doesn't prove intent. That's my main logical point here. Pro doesn't tell us the probability of "intelligent design"Pro doesn't tell or know the probability of the universe or humans being "intelligently" designed thus he can't say if this or non intelligent design is more or less probable. Lack of Background information for universesPeter Slezak explains. .. "The immense improbability of some event is often a good argument for an underlying cause or intelligent purpose and design. .. but not always, it depends on the context and background theory for that context. If I see written in the clouds I love Kylie it probably wasn't just the wind accidently blowing the clouds into shape. He we have a background theory according to which we have more plausible explanations for such an improbable event. Human interests and purposes that show why its not so improbable after all. But we can't just transfer this reasoning by analogy as the philosopher David Hume argued in his dialogues concerning natural religion, we have no background theory for how universes can come into being, the way we have for how writing comes into being. What alternative theory has scientific support that would makes chance a worse explanation in this case. How can you compare the entire universe to how a watch or house is made ? that is David Humes question. " & "So unless you know something else about the background the mere fact of the improbability on its own doesn't tell you anything that is contrary to the possibility of chance. [1] Weak Anthropic PrinciplePro butchers the WAP again. At no point has he explained in detail how the WAP commits a logical fallacy he just says it does. Of course maybe his own butchered version does, but the real WAP doesn't. It should be noted that when Hawking talks about "appearance" he is being quite literal, its just that an "appearance". As Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow explain. .. "Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. ". .. &. .. "That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle" [2] Pro tries to make it sound like that Hawking claims that these various variables and conditions were "very carefully chosen". This is disgraceful. Observation selection effects cause bias in data There is a very important logical point here that also effect any probability argument and its pretty hard to explain but I will try my best. Think of all the things that had to go right for Pro to exist with us today. Not only the things he has mentioned but then add to that all the world events and his own family tree, if just one thing had gone wrong he would not be with us today, what are the odds ! !! they are astronomical ! !! It was pre-planned. .. I think we have heard this one before. At this point hopefully, the readers if not Pro would appreciate, yeah I get that the odds are beyond comprehension but your arguing from a position where had not those events happened you wouldn't be here to ponder the astronomical odds of your own existence. How has Pro accounted for these preconditions which create a bias in his data and his probability argument ? He hasn't, its a faulty gambler overcoming the odds type reasoning, what are the odds eh ? the outcome was pre-planned. Paintings, Buildings, Watches and the UniverseI showed Pros bad logic, Pros throws up some distractions like size, a mere speck. .. I won't be chasing these around. Once again I showed you can't infer intelligent design on size + complexity as it results in false outcomes. But just in case there is any doubt consider Pros argument with the following hidden assumption brought out into view. ..1) A watch/building requires an intelligent designer.1b) Anything more complex than a watch/building requires an intelligent designer2) A human is more complex than a watch or building.3) Therefore, humans require an intelligent designer. What justification do we have for 1b) Anything more complex than a watch/building requires an intelligent designer ? Pro merely assumes that because SOME things of a certain complexity require intelligent design (man made products such as watches/buildings) that means ALL things (even Non man made things) of the same or more complexity must be intelligently designed, the argument is an Association fallacy. .. "An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. " [3]Pros "Premise 2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance. "Contrary to Pros triumphant declaration that their premise 2 had being affirmed, I was quite clear from the start I was arguing against their reasoning. Consider the following points I have being making. ..1) Improbable events happen all the time and don't prove intentionality2) The fact that x,y,z had not happened we would not be here doesn't prove intentionality3) You can't prove intelligent design based on size + complexity4) Refuting randomness doesn't rule out chance/non intelligent force as they are not the same thing5) Pro assumes that all things of a certain level of complexity need a designer this is never provenAs such I submit on strict logic grounds premise 2 can't be justified. But what about on probability grounds ? Consider again the points above combined with the following. .. .1) Insufficient background information on how universes come into being2) Pro doesn't account for the bias effect cause by necessary pre-conditions for the observer which leads to faulty gambler type reasoning.3) Pro doesn't know the probability of intelligent design so can't know whether its more or less probable 4) Anthropomorphism5) The assumption this was all done with us in mindAs such I submit to you that Pro doesn't have any sufficient warrant to justify premise 2. Does this datum suggest that God created our world ? That's it for me for round 4. Sources [1] www. youtube. com/watch? v=KqqESXhZAqE(note: you might have to add "http://" to see the video. I did this to stop the video being shown in my post, this isn't a video debate. ) [2] . http://online.wsj.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...