A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Neither Kant nor Hume agree with you. I guess I should be proud of how stupid I am.

You're full of shit.  I can quote you where Hume shits all over the teleological argument.  Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

(And Kant is a moot point, as he was a theist bound determined to bend himself into a pretzel to prove God, so he's hardly a worthwhile defeated.)

^This is why I suspect Kloro hasn’t read Hume’s ‘Dialogues’. Cleanthes’ assertion quoted above is pretty handily demolished. The ‘Dialogues’ were written as a framework of fictional debates to reject arguments for God.

Hume had his weaknesses, but supporting teleology wasn’t one of them.

Boru