Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (5)

*Regarding Scientific Evidence* My opponent states: "Do we need to "observe" the thing in question, in order to be justified in order to believe it ? The answer is no, consider the example of gravity. We can observe all day long the motion of objects, but we can't actually observe gravity its self. The evidence is the motion of the objects (what we can see), the explanation of the evidence is the theory of gravity. (something we can't see). " When we view such things as objects falling to the surface of the earth and the celestial orbits of planets and other satellites, we are indeed observing gravity in action. To say otherwise would be trapping yourself in a freakish and unscientific realm where viewing pinwheels rotating is not observing wind, and where viewing the light of a desk lamp is not observing electricity. Indeed, we can observe and record things which are invisible to the naked eye, including (but not limited to) gravity, electricity, air currents, sound waves, ultraviolet, heat, and radiation. However, the Intelligent Designer that my opponent is proposing must rationally exist cannot, in any way, be observed. It not only eludes the human eye, but every other possible means we have to observe things in the universe. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer is simply very keen at hiding from us. Or perhaps it exists outside of our time and space. Either way, it is completely unobservable. The question then becomes: is it rational to believe in something which has not been (and cannot possibly be) observed? My answer to that would be a resounding "no". It is totally illogical and irrational to believe in something which cannot be observed by any means possible, lest we believe in literally everything the human imagination can conceivably fathom. As I've said, there are many possible theories we can come up with regarding the origins of the cosmos and life, none of which would involve an Intelligent Designer, but we simply don't believe in any of them due to an absence of evidence. *Watchmaker Argument Continued* My opponent states this: "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. & 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. " My opponent is only partially correct. Even if we had not observed the car during the process in which it was constructed, we should be able to logically deduce it had a human creator. But (as I've said before) this is not because it contains complimentary parts. It is because everything we know about cars points to a human creator. If we could see cars roaming in the safari, performing mating rituals, and birthing newer model cars, then perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to come to the conclusion that they all have human makers. But this is not the case. Every car comes into existence through human creation, while every human comes into existence through natural means. My opponent states: "Sure these things are "natural", but the question is whether intelligent design is involved. The fact that there are things that are "natural" doesn't tell us one way or another whether intelligent design is involved or if the natural thing is totally absent any design. " It is an illogical pattern of thinking to recognize that you had a completely natural birth, and that your parents had completely natural births, and that your parents' parents had completely natural births, so on and so forth, until generations and generations down the line you decide, "That one, though, could not possibly have been a natural birth. We need an Intelligent Designer to explain that one. " The fact that there are natural things doesn't tell us whether an Intelligent Designer was involved, or whether an Intelligent Designer wasn't involved. But when there is no zero evidence for the existence and nonexistence of something, the default position should be disbelief (to assume nonexistence). My opponent then stated: "I would have to reject the claim that a sheet of paper is "simple". By complex I mean something which has multiple parts. " This seems like a blatant contradiction to me. If "complex" means something which has multiple parts, then "simple" means something which does not have multiple parts. A sheet of paper does not have multiple parts, and so by your logic, it should be assumed it was not intelligently designed, when of course, we know it was. *Arguing My Stance, Not Someone Else's* My opponent seems to object to my belief in an eternal universe, stating: "The best science to date says that the universe began to exist and has not always existed. " I wasn't going to mention this, but since you seem an avid fan of modern science, I must say: the best science to date says that the universe came about 13.7 billion years ago via the Big Bang (not an Intelligent Designer), that life originated on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago via abiogenesis (also not an Intelligent Designer), and that the complexities of life arose gradually over time via evolution and natural selection (again, not an Intelligent Designer). These scientific theories can explain the universe's origins and complexities without the use of an Intelligent Designer as easily as science can explain rain without an Intelligent Designer. I will argue my stance (which admittedly contradicts some modern science) while you argue yours (which also contradicts some modern science). Having said that, I will continue to assert my belief that the universe is, in fact, eternal. 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. " But now, I must only reiterate what I have already said: That "something" you describe, I believe, is the universe. The universe is eternal, and so had no cause. Therefore, by your logic, it exists out of necessity (not by chance). Whichever method you use to justify your Intelligent Designer's eternal existence, you can also use to justify the universe's eternal existence (without adding an unnecessary and unsatisfactory step). I thank you for your time and eagerly await the next round of debate.