You said – "To say that there must be a designer because there must be a cause is illogical and unreasonable because you rule out all other just as optional alternatives"

It doesnt rule out anything…In science, conclusions are drawn based on the greater amount of evidence. If more evidence is found to support "optional alternatives", then whatever they are will be accepted.

And no, design is not contrary to all the evidence we have so far discovered about the universe..In fact, it pretty much falls right in line with it. It is those in the secular who refuse to accept it based on a predisposed bias to natural materialism.

Speaking of logical fallacies….Most anyone would agree that the evidence for design FAR outweighs ANY evidence for big bounce.

Says who?

An accidental or random occurrence can BE a cause. "Cause" does not necessarily imply intelligence, simply action.

Depending on your view point, Virtual particles may or may not fall under the law of causality. Take for example, Heisenberg's principle. Something can arise from nothing IF it returns to nothing after a very short period, an interval too small to be measured….I'll admit thats about as much as I know on this matter though. Therefore I concede that you do make a valid counterpoint here.

And yes, I do understand the anthropic principle, but you're arguing the fact that theres no scientific way to DETERMINE the cause….All the while overlooking the obvious…"There is in fact A CAUSE", and not an accidental or random occerence. I said nothing about determing anything…Its like arguing against your own existence because you cant DETERMINE how you got here. Nevermind the fact that your presence is in fact the result of a cause.

1. Even though science operates under a causa efficiens, there are things in science for which there is no apparent cause. Consider the sudden popping into existence of pairs of so-called virtual particles. We know they're there as evidenced by the Casimir effect, but we don't know really what causes them to jump into existence – there seems no cause at all – in fact, it seems rather random and left to chance, just like a lot of other things in quantum mechanics. The "law of causality" is bogus.

2. You don't understand the anthropic principle. When correctly applied, it is a tool qualitatively analysing statements by taking into account our existence. If some model of reality excludes our existence, then that model is wrong. Of course our universe allows for human life – otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion! If we lived in a universe that had constants that didn't allow life and yet we would still be here, that would be something to break our heads over. The anthropic principle is like a necessary marker on our map (model) of the territory (reality). We can also use other markers – for example the flu virus marker. In any map, we must be sure to include a marker for the flu virus. The anthropic principle does not in any way prove that the universe was designed, because we can use a shitload of markers that we know must be on the map. Did the creator have humans in mind, but did that also mean to allow for flu viruses; or did the creator have viruses in mind, with the side effect that humans would arise also? Which do we decide is the important one to determine the causa finalis of the universe? I argue that there is no way to determine this, hence it is a senseless and also unscientific question.

3. It doesn't matter that the universe seems fine-tuned to us. Pick a random integer from 1 to 10. The number you have picked is not special. It had a chance of being picked of 1/10. Similarly, the universe's constants could have been anything. This combination of constants is in no way statistically more significant than any other combination. It is like winning the lottery and saying "the teleological purpose of the lottery was for me to win it!" It's just silly.

Thanks for playing.

The Anthropic Principle presents the fact that there are 122 constants that prove the universe was designed. The odds are 10138 that any other planet in the Universe could fulfill these constants and sustain human life. All scientists agree that this number equals zero chance. The Teleological Argument states that every design has a designer. The Anthropic Principle proves that the universe was designed.Therefore, the universe had a designer. If the universe was designed, and it cannot design itself, then what ever designed it had to be an eternal designer, (and something that is eternal needs no cause)..Atheists are searching frantically for a viable alternative. However, to date they have not come up with even a single clue. Until they can prove differently, it is without question that the universe was designed/created. For this reason, we know that a designer exists. To say otherwise is illogical and unreasonable, and is most certainly not based on scientific data, but on ones unwillingness to accept the idea of an eternal designer. It isn’t that there exists no evidence to the existence of a designer, but rather they do not want to accept the evidence. A cursory research of this fact will show that it is correct.

In much the same way that evolutionists trip over the 2nd law of thermodynamics.