The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God.

I thank Con for his willingness to debate this with me, and appreciate his disclaimer as well. I share in his sentiment that it's important to flesh out our arguments and see if they need to be tweaked or abandoned altogether.As previously stated, the Teleological Argument I will be defending is as follows:P1 -- The universe resulted either from design or chance.P2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance.C -- Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed.Premise 1 -- The universe resulted either from design or chance.This is self-explanatory and at present I see no need to justify it. If Con takes issue with it, I will address his concerns in the next round.Premise 2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance.Chance is a non-intelligent force. We see design in the universe all around us. There are many things which had to have occurred just perfectly in order for life to exist on this world. For example, if water had not been present, if our atmosphere produced methane instead of oxygen, if plant life was not here, and a host of other things. One cannot expect to get order from non-intelligence. One would expect to get chaos. The only plausible explanation for our existence is that the universe had a designer, God.The high improbability of a chance happening is due to the fact that there is not an eternity of in which to realize the ordered arrangement in which things now find themselves, as some would speculate (such as David Hume). There are only so many billions of geological years for things to take their present arrangement. S.C. Hackett has said, "I conclude that the notion of chance simply does not provide any rationally plausible explanation of the significant order in the universe, and that therefore the principle of purposively directed activity provides an overwhelmingly more reasonable explanation." [1]In fact, an arch-defender of Evolution, Julian Huxley, has estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the odds against evolution happening by pure chance are 1 followed by 3 million zeros (fifteen hundred pages of zeros) to one. [2]The odds of the universe coming into existence and producing just the right combination of elements for human life, and then that human life evolving from more primitive forms of life is so immense, that to seriously believe in it requires much more faith than any miraculous account from the Bible.Seeing that the universe was designed is not so hard to believe. After all someone who is ignorant of art, after seeing the Mona Lisa, would still conclude that there was a painter. And someone who is ignorant of architecture, upon viewing the Eiffel Tower, would know there was a builder. If a painting requires a painter, and a building a builder, how much more would a complex and huge universe require a designer?William Paley has postulated a case in which we can clearly conclude there is a designer. Paraphrasing, he says in crossing a heath suppose you trip over a stone. You might question how the stone got there, but as far as you know nothing to the contrary, it could have been there forever. However, suppose you find a watch on the ground. You might question how the watch got there, you wouldn't think of the same reason as before, that the watch might have always been there. Why is it admissible in the first case but not the second? For this reason alone: when you inspect the watch, you perceive -- what you could not discover in the stone -- is that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose. [3]Paley shows the contrivances in nature are more incredible than those in a watch. He is careful to root his argument in observation.The reasoning is as follows: A watch shows that it was put together for an intelligent purpose (to keep time). It has a spring to give it motion. A series of wheels transmits this motion, made of brass so that they do not rust. The spring is made of resilient steel. The front cover is glass so that one can see through it. All this is evidence of intelligent design.Theologian Norman Geisler adds, "But the world shows a much greater evidence of design than a watch. It has an endless variety of means adapted to ends. The human eye alone would suffice to demonstrate intelligent design in nature." [4]By observing the universe around us, it seems much more plausible that the universe was designed and didn't arise by chance.Conclusion -- Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed.I believe the conclusion is supported well by the premises. I look forward to Con's rebuttal.[1] Hackett, S.C., The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim, p. 106.[2] Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action, p. 46.[3] Paley, William, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, p. 3.[4] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 574.