Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

I thank Con for their response. Con complains about a vague definition, yet Con argues against an intelligent designer, obviously the definition given is good enough for Con to deny its existence. Consider this objection refuted Con says "Many people, as my opponent has done, look toward the inherent complexity of the universe and say that the only reason such a thing could exist is due to a more complex, a more intelligent being" Strawman argument, I only claimed thats its rational to believe in intelligent design. I never said that the ONLY way for complexity to exist is by intelligent design, at the very least all I have to argue is that an intelligent cause is more plausible over its negation (an unintelligent) cause. I also never claimed the intelligent designer was "complex". Con says "In fact, to acknowledge that the universe was intelligently designed gives us no further outlook in regards to the nature to the universe than saying it was not intelligently caused" Even if this is true, this does nothing to dis prove an intelligent designer. This is just an appeal to unpleasant consequences. Con says "If we cannot know the nature of the existence of a complex thing, some sort of intelligent being caused its existence" Straw man, I never argued from ignorance, I gave my argument as why we should deduce design. Con says "If anything, intelligent design bars us from seeking out any further information because we've reached an ambiguous, vague and largely irrelevant conclusion." Utter false hood, obviously its not so vague that Con can't deny its existence. Con seems to have this weird idea that accepting an intelligent design means science comes to an end ? This is completely false. Con says "One celled organisms because multi-cellular organisms, and then these organisms grew and developed into the various beings that we know today. There is no exclusive intelligence to be had about any of them." This explains process, it doesn't say one way or another if the process has its origins in intent. Con says "IN SUMMARY - everything in the universe is caused by something else in the universe" Is Con arguing for an infinite regress ? Con is saying that their is no first cause, cause every effect in the universe is preceded by a cause in the universe. Con says "Humans exist by intent - the intent of the intelligent designer -> Untrue; humans exist by virtue of the random mutation that is explained by evolution" This is a non sequitur, evolutionary process says nothing about whether the process its self has its origins in intent or absent intent. Lets go over my first argument............... If we had a watch, which of course is designed, and broke it down to it various parts, of course neither of its parts or process have intelligence in themselves, yet the watch does in fact have its origins in an intelligent cause. How can this be the case ? because process that is absent of intent can have its origins in intent. 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. Con claims they refuted this, my response is LOLZ, rest assured when people get in their cars, they will think that the car was designed therefore it has an intelligent cause, despite Cons so called claims about refuting this premise. 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. This is where the real argument lies. Con uses evolution to prove their is no intent, I have refuted that. But of course just because evolution process doesn't prove absence of intent, doesn't prove that Intent was involved either. At this point I would ask anyone to consider........... Is it more plausible that humans beings exist by intent ? or more plausible humans being exist absent any intent ? With evolutionary process not proving absence of intent, and unintelligent process able to have their origins in intent and design being able to be deduced from complimentary working parts, Such as cars, watches, humans, that it is indeed more plausible that humans exist with intent involved. Con objected to my 2nd argument, I think I need to expand on it a bit so we don't argue strawmen. The 2nd argument deals with causation, or lack of causation, and in the case of causation whether the cause has intent or absent intent thus......... 1) Something exists either because its caused or uncaused 2) If something is caused, then its cause has intent or absent intent 3) Humans don't exist because they are uncaused or absent intent 4) Therefore humans exist by intent I look forwards to Cons reply.