Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (5)

I thank Con for their reply.Paper & SimplicityI need to back track a bit here cause I made a mistake in something. I can go along with paper being "simple", but this doesn't mean that my argument says therefore the paper is probably not designed. 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.The current scientific theories Con brings up the big bang, abiogeneis, evolution, the age of the universe and when life appeared.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. The big bang doesn't rule out an intelligent cause nor does it explain why this universe works within life permitting constants. Evolution and natural selection describe process, and has nothing to say about how those process came to be.Con says "I will argue my stance (which admittedly contradicts some modern science) while you argue yours (which also contradicts some modern science)"How does my stance contradict some modern science ?Evidence and explanations of the evidenceCon says "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."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. "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. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena" [1]Once again no one has ever observed "gravity". As I said before, you don't need to see the thing in order to be justified to believe that it exists. This refutes Cons objection that the belief of an unseen intelligent design is irrational regardless of what argument and or evidence is provided in its favour.Cars, Paleys clock and the design inferenceCon says " 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."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.Natural & DesignI think Con misses the point here, to illustrate imagine a car factory that is totally automated. Some one could point out that the cars are not the result of design its all without design. In this context they are right as the "processes" of these cars being made are without intelligence, but that doesn't mean that these processes don't have their origin in an intelligent cause. Like wise the "natural" processes con refers too, don't in any way disprove an intelligent cause.Con brings up "natural" process such as evolution. 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 ?1) Necessity2) Chance3) DesignThere is no reason that both the fine tuning of the universe that allows for a life permitting universe, and evolution to happen in that life permitting universe exist out of necessity.Maybe chance ? but once again no one would accept these odds just happening by chance in other area's of their life.Which leaves us with design being the most probable option, that evolution happening in a life permitting universe happens cause some one choose too.Fine Tuning and the DesignerCon 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.This refutes Cons claim that "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 look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...