Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (5)

*Paper* Regarding my paper counter-argument, my opponent states: "My argument only makes the claim of complex things and things which have complimentary parts are more probable to be designed, it doesn't make the claim either way about whether simple things are more probable to be designed or not. " Your claim indirectly does make this claim, whether you intended it to or not. When you say "something with complimentary parts (the human body) is more likely to be designed" it should be logically inferred that, by contrast, "something with no complimentary parts (a sheet of paper) is less likely to be designed". For this reason alone, the entire Watchmaker argument should be scrapped. *Science* My opponent states: "My argument doesn't depend on the age of the universe nor does it depend on the age of the earth or when life appeared. Maybe Con is confusing intelligent design as creationism. " I didn't bring up these scientific theories merely for their large numbers (13.7 billion years, 3.5 billion years). I understand you are arguing for any Intelligent Designer, not a specific one which would be refuted by an old universe. The reason I mentioned these scientific theories is because they can demonstrate that the origins and continuations of the cosmos and life are completely natural. And when every observable thing in the universe is demonstrably natural and can be explained naturally, there is absolutely no reason to believe in a supernatural entity. My opponent states: "Evolution and natural selection describe process, and has nothing to say about how those process came to be. " Your main evidences so far for your Intelligent Designer have been the complexities of the human body. Evolution and natural selection can explain how such complexities arose in the human body without the need of a supernatural force. My opponent asks: "How does my stance contradict some modern science ? " 1) You will never find an Intelligent Designer in any modern science textbook. And if you were to publish this hypothesis in a peer-reviewed science journal, I fear it would be quickly refuted. 2) The Watchmaker argument was refuted only a short few decades after its publication by Charles Dawin's (later) theory of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection are modern science's explanation for the complexities and diversities of life on Earth, not an Intelligent Designer. *Evidences* My opponent states: "Con is wrong if Con is suggesting that we are observing gravity. The motion of the objects is what is observed, gravity is the scientific theory that explains this observable phenomena. " Measuring your current weight on a bathroom scale is observing gravity as much as measuring the voltage in a car battery is observing electricity. I never said you needed to see something to believe in it. But you should be able to observe it. And while we can't see gravity or electricity or radiation or ultraviolet, we can observe them. The point I was originally trying to make was that we have no way to actually observe this Intelligent Designer, and therefore it is unscientific to assume its existence. My opponent states: "The car is only used as an example to show the principles involved in the argument. The principle being that something with multiple parts working complimentary with other parts is more probable to be designed. With the principle explained we can ditch the car. " As I've said (from my sheet of paper argument), my opponent would do well to scrap this entire argument and start from scratch, as this hypothesis only works against his claim of an Intelligent Designer. *Fine tuning of the universe* My opponent states: "We can accept these processes which in of them selves are non intelligent, but it raises the question how did these natural process come about ? " This is again posing the question, where did the physical properties of the universe originate (those which govern how abiogenesis, evolution, and other scientific principles operate) if not an Intelligent Designer? The answer is "I don't know, though it was probably chance", and I don't need to argue the rationality of a different theory. I only need to argue the irrationality of the Intelligent Designer theory (which, like the irrationality of any theory, resides in its lack of evidence). My opponent objects to "chance" as a reasonable explanation for this universe's physical properties. He compares it to getting a Royal Flush on every hand in a game of Poker, as if that is the equivalent of a universe having the specific properties to birth the life we know today. Perhaps it is, but this only takes into account the life we know today. My opponent seems to be assuming that the values of the physical properties of our universe (the force of gravity, electromagnetic force, etc. ) are the only values suitable to contain life, but this is only a baseless speculation. If the values had been different, it would be reasonable to assume life would still exist, but in a different way in order to compensate the different universe's physical challenges. For example, you could look at the Sahara desert (with all of its hyenas, jackals, shrubbery, etc. ) and speculate "This is perfectly fine-tuned to be suitable for life. " However, the speculator makes the backwards mistake of assuming the environment was fine-tuned for life, when (in reality) life is very resilient and evolves to suit its specific environment. In the same way, neither the universe nor the Earth were fine-tuned for life, but life fine-tuned itself for the Earth. It may then be said that evolution itself is a product of Intelligent Design, but evolution's very purpose is to compensate for life's blatant weaknesses and imperfections in its "design". *Occum's Razor* My opponent states: "Con brings up a new objection, the objection being that the universe is eternal and thus necessary. Trouble is Con even bought up the best science to date that says the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. A universe that is 13.7 billion years old is not an eternal universe. " I wasn't going to debate under the premise of the Big Bang (as I don't believe in it), but since you won't argue the stance I do believe in, then let us both assume I believe in the Big Bang (no problem). In the previous round, you stated: "I don't believe [the existence of an Intelligent Designer is] an unnecessary step for two reasons. .. .. .. . 1) Something must exist which is uncaused. 2) Something that exists which is uncaused exists be necessity and not by chance. " The Big Bang was the first event in the history of our universe, and was therefore uncaused. Adding an Intelligent Designer, which would also be uncaused, to explain this uncaused event would be adding an unnecessary and unsatisfactory step. I look forward to your response.