The Argument from Design is inherently false

1. Con offers three alternative definitions of AD, all three of which clearly contain the same two inherent contradictions as the more-encompassing definition that I offered. Con offered no argument as to why the two fallacies would not apply to his versions of AD, therefore the arguments stand unrefuted. 2. If I understand Con, he claims that I used the word "magic" in some pejorative sense, and he then supposes I went on to refute the existence of magic. This is not true; I clearly distinguished the trickery of stage magicians from the concept of true magic allegedly performed by gods. I needed a word for "an event that occurs which is not only unexplained by any current known law of nature, but which cannot be a consequence of any future discovery of new laws of nature." A can think of no better word than "magic," but if the word displeases Con, the acronym "AETOWISNOUBACKLAWONBCBACOAFDOFNLON" instead of "magic." All of the arguments stand as stated if the phrase is used in place of the word. I defined a "god" as a being that can perform AETOWISNOUBACKLAWONBCBACOAFDOFNLON at will. If all events are a consequence of repeatable and reliable laws of nature, then there is no need to for a god to have a played a role in creation, and therefore AD cannot be a proof of the existence of a god. If Con stipulates that there is no AETOWISNOUBACKLAWONBCBACOAFDOFNLON, then there nothing that requires a god to explain, and the resolution is true. 4. Con offers "A God is defined as a supreme being. BUT, it does not need to be defined as for God is not an inherent component within the AD. My, being the affirmative debater, have the ability to define the grounds that I am willing to defend. Thus, I am not obligated to prove the existence of God." a. I am assuming that by "My, being" con meant to write "My opponent, being". b. Con is correct that he is not obliged to prove the existence of God. That is correct because there might be some proof other than AD. c. Con asserts that "God is not an inherent component within the AD." If that is true, then Con concedes that AD is not an argument for the existence of a god. Moreover, Con's argument is derived from an inherent flaw in AD. Therefore, Con has conceded the debate. I presume that Con will attempt to retract his concession and continue accordingly. 5. Con's first version of AD is "1.X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally. 2.Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. 3.God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. 4.Therefore, God exists." a. The argument contains the false dichotomy that all events are either random or purposeful. This supposes that if an objects consistently fall to the ground when dropped, that because they do not fly away in random directions that God must be guiding them to the ground. The alternative Con does not admit is that gravity brings the object to the ground without benefit of will or purpose. b. The first inherent fallacy is that since God is to complex to have been created by accident, then God must have a creator. This sets up an infinite regression in which there is no first creator, therefore the argument as stated fails by inherent contradiction. c. If God is allowed, for unstated reasons, to be an exception to the rule that all extremely complex things have creators, then the universe must also be allowed as an exception. This obviates the need for a good, and AD again fails. 6. Con's second version of AD depends upon "All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception." a. No definition of irreducibly complexity has ever been sustained. Books on intelligent design (ID) give examples of physiological structures in nature that they allege to be irreducibly complex and therefore could not have evolved by natural processes. All of the examples are ad hoc, and the evolutionary mechanism for many of them has been explained. Some are left to be explained, but the list gets forever shorter. Since irreducibly complexity has no definition and many examples have been proved false, the entire argument based upon it is false. b. God is irreducibly complex by any definition that could be imagined. Therefore God must have a designer, and AD formulation fails because there can be no first designer. c. If God is allowed as an exception to the requirement for a designer, then the universe must also be allowed as an exception. 7. Con's third version of AD is "1.Complexity implies a designer. 2.The universe is highly complex. 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer." is quite close to the formulation of AD I offered originally. In any case, it fails as: a) God is complex. Therefore by the AD assumption that complexity requires a designer, therefore God must have a designer. This allows no first designer, so the argument fails. b) If God is an exception to the rule that everything complex requires a designer, then the universe must also be allowed as an exception. 8. Con argues that declaring something inherently false "discourages research." Something is inherently false if the argument contains a logical contradiction. For example "All As are B. X is an A. But X is not a B" is not something that research can possibly resolve. It is a logical contradiction. In the context of this debate the assertions "everything complex requires a designer" and "God is complex but does not require a designer" are inherent contradictions that cannot be resolved by any means.