Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (5)

NOTE if you have a problem with definitions or rules or anything, please post in the comment section first, to see whether we can both agree to amended rules or descriptions before starting. I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief. My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief. (PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side) In order to win I have to argue that Intelligent Design is a rational belief (I don't have convince anyone that its true, just that its a rational belief) In order for my opponent to win they must argue that Intelligent Design is an irrational belief (they don't have to convince anyone that its false, just that its an irrational belief) Definitions Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity Rational - agreeable to reason Reason - the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opening statements.............. A car has many parts, that not only work a certain way in of them selves but also work complimentary to other parts in the car. Even if we had no observations of the car actually being built and design, we could still make a reasonable judgement that the car was designed based on its different parts working complimentary to one another. A Human has many parts, that not only work a certain way in of them selves but also work complimentary to other parts in the human. Even if we have no observations of the human being built and designed, we could still make a reasonable judgement that the human was designed based on its different parts working complimentary to one another. 1) If something has multiple parts working complimentary to each other, its more probable that its designed than not designed 2) Humans have multiple working parts working complimentary to each other 3) Therefore its more probable that Humans are the result of design It could be argued that humans came into being by non design, for example a combination of chance and natural laws. But why accept this alternative as more probable than humans existing by design ? Sure its possible, but is it more probable ? Even in this alternative of humans existing absent any design, it would still have to happen in a world/universe that is life permitting. But a life permitting universe can only happen within a small range of constants as William Craig explains......."This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist." Now there are three possibilities for explaining the presence of this fine-tuning of the universe..... 1) physical necessity 2) chance 3) design There is no reason to think the laws and or the constants of the universe are necessary, they could of been different. What about chance ? Consider the example of playing poker with some one, who on every hand gets a royal flush. You ask for an explanation, the person merely retorts... "just lucky I guess, happened by chance". In theory the person is correct, but no one would ever accept such an explanation. Which leaves us with design as the most plausible answer, that the constants are that way because some one choose it to be that way, and thus don't exist by necessity or by chance. I look forward to Cons reply.