On one hand the Teleological Argument (TA) touches on an awe and wonder that seems to be present in humans when we see the grander of our world.
I agree that nature is truly an astounding source of beauty and inspiration.
Yet according to the TA the only possible explanation and source for this wonder is a monotheistic g-d, and those that posit this do so on faith. How is everything in our finite world accredited to a g-d( and how does one know , by what means is this hypothesized.) so far no one can answer this. How is a g-d able to create finitely but can't be explained in a finite sense. This poses problems for me.
I see where your where your coming from, however the god described purely be teleological means and your description above sounds more like the god of the gaps, ie, can't explain something whether it awe of nature or the cosmos, it's must be god. I don't believe in the god of the gaps and it's what atheists normally try and use against theists although the arguments has progressed, they are still stuck in the past.
What ever caused the universe to exist which is a finite effect, logically has to he the result of something immaterial, because it produced the sum of all matter, separate of time and space because it's finite effect caused time and space, because the universe is a finite effect, ie had a begging, it's logical conclusion is that the cause itself is infinite and ever lasting immaterial and single, which never runs out hence it was able to produce a physical reality which is the sum of all matter and what we as atheists consider the only reality, which is a rather shallow view.
A subjective perspective of god is not correct, teleological argument contribute towards an ontological look at the argument but it's not the be all and end all! If a god exists it has to make objective logical sense, the model of god has to be coherent with philosophy, science, logic etc an objectively recognisable god.
I am left with open questions that cannot be answered.
For me it works to say I don't know and may never know and I'm cool with that.
I respect that view. However I think a cogent argument for the existence of god does exist, unfortunately most people equate truth and evidence purely on an empirical level, which is a shallow perspective and actually quite disingenuous towards the whole topic which encompasses all standards of knowledge and when they come together in a coherent manner they provide a logical truth that god does exist.
It's meaningless only if you cannot go beyond empiricism. If that's your limit anything beyond is a simple "I dunno". It depends on what constitutes as evidence, if it's only direct empirical proof then you will never find god, however when I observe nature, the cosmos, the order, the precise nature of our existence, I see sign posts to the transcendent. I hold that down to my world view being more expansive than empiricism, which limits truths to our physical reality only.
There is nothing to argue. All the best.
Nothing to argue about but we can have a dialogue and discussion can't we?