Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (5)

*Paper* My opponent states: "Con says that my argument implies that if something is simple it is more probable that is not designed. I dis agree with this claim for example, although the paper is simple, it is the product of many complex causes. If the paper was the product absent these complex causes then yes my argument would say that its more probable that it is not designed. " My opponent is rejecting his own argument's implication based solely on the fact that said implication has been revealed to be demonstrably false (ergo discrediting the entire argument). I am not a wicked grammar dictator who seeks to win debates by playing with semantics. I do, however, have a basic understanding of philosophy and the english language, and therefore I can logically deduce the statement "something WITH complimentary parts is MORE likely to be designed" implies "something with NO complimentary parts is LESS likely to be designed". It would be like me claiming "a person with a high school diploma is more likely to get a well-paying job", which also implies that "a person withOUT a high school diploma is LESS likely to get a well-paying job". Or like me claiming "a person with money is more likely to be happy" which implies "a person with NO money is LESS likely to be happy". Statements such as these which directly link the possession of something (complimentary parts, a high school diploma, money, etc. ) with a quality of the thing possessing it (Intelligent Design, a well-paying job, happiness, etc. ) always work both ways. Otherwise, the statements are incomparable to anything else we know of and so would serve no purpose at all. *Evidences* My opponent claims gravity is not scientifically observed when measuring your weight on a scale, but then goes to describe: "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. " Note that in my case, gravity is the "observable phenomena" and the number on the measuring scale is the "quantifiable properties". It would be pointless to continue asserting that we can, indeed, observe and measure gravity as I have had to do so many times already (as I'm sure most of the voters will already know we observe the force of gravity on a daily basis). To say otherwise would be as absurd as claiming we don't observe buoyancy when we watch a public pool goer float on the surface. It seems my opponent is trying to twist gravity into being something as abstract and supernatural as his Intelligent Designer, when in reality, it is a very natural and physically-existing phenomena that can be observed and accurately measured infinitely more easily than any Intelligent Designer. *Fine Tuning* When I stated that the claim "this universe's physical properties are the only ones which could sustain life" is a baseless speculation and that life could probably exist under different conditions, my opponent pointed out that that, too, was a "baseless speculation". However, I must disagree with this accusation. My speculation of the resilience of life is anything but "baseless" and I apologize for not delving more deeply into this in the previous round. Life can exist in the most remote, hostile environments, from the freezing tundra to the blistering desert to the competitive jungle. Of course, this still only shows life existing among the same physical constants, right? Actually, no. There are only four natural forces governing the physical universe as we know it: weak force, strong force, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force [1]. Take, for example, my opponent's recent favorite of the four natural forces: gravity. The force of gravity attracts two objects to each other based on the distance between them and their masses (G=m1*m2/d^2) [2]. This means if the Earth was very, very large, the gravitational pull we would experience would flatten us like pancakes. And if the Earth was very, very small, the gravitational pull would be nearly nonexistent and we would just float around until we escaped the atmosphere (if it even had one, though it probably wouldn't). Therefore, if the constant force of gravity in the universe had been stronger, then life would simply exist on smaller planets. And had the force of gravity been weaker, then life would exist on larger planets. Take another of the four natural forces: weak force. Weak force is responsible for the creation and longevity of stars [1]. Now you might think "This is an important job for sustaining life. Life can't exist without the sun's heat and light energy. " But you'd be wrong. If you dive deep enough into the ocean (about 20,000 feet) you will reach what is called the Hadal zone, where no sunlight can reach. Creatures in this zone (mainly tube worms and jellyfish) live completely void of any aid of any star [3]. In closing this argument on the "fine-tuning" of the universe, one of the four natural forces (gravity) could have virtually any value, while another (weak force) could not even exist, and life would still be able to exist. *Occum's Razor* My opponent states that adding an Intelligent Designer to explain the Big Bang isn't an unnecessary or unsatisfactory step for two reasons, which I will be discussing individually. "1) You can't get something from nothing" Firstly, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss would like to disagree with you: . http://www.youtube.com.... Secondly, why are you even trying to dispute this theory's validity? It is only an eternal universe which would directly contradict your need for an Intelligent Designer. And it is only a cosmogenesis theory like the Big Bang (which states the universe had a beginning) that your Intelligent Designer could have used to create the universe. If you are asserting that this Intelligent Designer created the cosmos and everything in the universe, then it must have made it all from NOTHING. Now, it may start to seem like I'm arguing for your point, but I'm not (only against your objection to "something can't come from nothing" which is at the heart of both of our theories, not just mine). If there is such a weird (probably quantum) force which allows for a physical universe to come into existence from nothing, why not believe this force can govern itself without a third-party agent? After all, every other natural force we are aware of, which I have already shown to be very arbitrarily "fine-tuned", operates out of physical necessity and not by an outside controller. "2) That which begins to exist has a cause" Perhaps it is simply that the cause of the Big Bang is currently unknown. But it is not your prerogative to fill that unknown with any theory you like (in this case, "Intelligent Design"). It could have been a Dumb But Lucky Designer. Or it could be that the Big Bang never happened (as you seemed to say in your first point) and that the universe always existed. It could be any number of things. Your Intelligent Designer has no more evidence to support it than any of these other theories. *Closing Remarks* No new evidences were presented by my opponent in this final round and as I refuted the only other evidences previously provided (Watchmaker argument, speculations about the natural forces of the universe), I still hold strongly to the notion that a belief in an Intelligent Designer is irrational. I encourage the voters to, of course, base their decisions on who they feel presented the most sound debates. And again, I thank you, Pro, for rivaling me throughout this truly interesting debate. It's been a blast and I almost wish there could be a round five. *Sources* [1] . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [2] . http://www.universetoday.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...