Intelligent design does not exist

"My opponent misunderstands the argument from free will. What it means is that if it's possible to know what choice that creature with free will will make; then it must be "destined" to happen. If "destiny" is true, then free will doesn't exist. So if God knows the choice that animal makes, "destiny" is real and that means that there is no free will. Basically without determinism; it's impossible to know what a creature will do; it's not a matter of forcing them to do it. Essentially you can't know something for sure if there's any chance that something else might happen."Here my opponent attempts to clarify his argument using arguably more complex language. I will clarify and summarise my opponents argument:"If God has predestined the occurrences of the world, then free will does not exist."One can then deduce using the principle of the "Understood Opposite" that if free will exists, then God has not predestined the occurrences of the universe. I will point out four separate flaws with this argument.1. This this is a textbook example of a Red Herring logical fallacy. A Red Herring Fallacy is when a debater attempts to turn the argument from topic A (on which his/her arguments may or may not be failing) to topic B (on which s/he may or may not stand a better chance at winning), while the two topics are not inherently related to one another.In this particular case, my opponent is attempting to switch from the possibility of ID (topic A) to the existence of free will (Topic B), while the two are not inherently related to one another. 2. In order for my opponents argument to carry any weight, my opponent must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that free will does indeed exist. This is because my opponent has invoked the existence of free will as proof that God is not omniscient. As my opponent has not demonstrated the required condition in any way, this argument is rendered useless.3. In this argument my opponent targets a very restricted view of God the Creator, that he is indeed omniscient. The religious spectrum that associates with the viewpoint is very diverse, and many religions do not believe in an omniscient God. The Calvinist Christians and Qadariyyah Muslims are two examples. 4. In this argument my opponent attempts to negate only one supposed attribute of God the Creator. There is no correlation between the ideas of predestination and design.2. "So back to defining the creator. We've already established that the creator MUST be a being that exists outside of space-time since there is no way anything could have designed the universe unless it wasn't part of the universe. Another proof that the designer must be a transcendental God is because if it was part of this universe then according to intelligent design any "irreducibly complex" parts must have been designed and then you go into an infinite regression."This argument simply goes to show that God is not part of his creation. I do not disagree. Second, my opponent admits here that since God exists outside of the universe, then the rules of our universe do not apply. Since this is the case, I will make an assertion here, despite the fact that my sole role in this debate is disproval.Science, human intellect, and logic do not apply to God, as he exists outside of the universe and the aforementioned only apply to that which is within our universe. Third, my opponents arguments in no way prove the attributes my opponent bases his argument upon. If my opponent wishes to use any of his original arguments, he must first prove that God has these attributes:OmnipotenceOmniscienceSees all particles in the universe and only particles Even if my opponent were to prove the aforementioned, then I would still be able to disprove each of his arguments.3. "So one argument against the existence of the intelligent design God: Nothing can exist before the universe because the universe is all there is (except in the case of a multiverse which doesn't change the end result; because nothing can control an entire universe.)"Here my opponent makes an assertion that cannot be backed up. This statement is avoided by even the most staunch atheist scientists. We cannot know what is beyond the edges of the universe as it is unobservable, unpredictable, and quite frankly, unknowable. The idea that the universe is infinite is a minority opinion. The consensus is that the universe does indeed have edges, and is expanding[1].CONCLUSIONI have both proven that ID cannot exist without a transcendental God and that a transcendental God is impossible. None of my opponents arguments have even addressed either of these two contentions, and I have effectively refuted each of my opponents arguments.Source:Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrologyhttps://www.cfa.harvard.edu...