Via Intelligent Design, an infinitely-inteligent, creator god cannot be logically justified

I thank Envisage for what was literally ‘last-minute’ heroics in producing a response. Since this will be my last contribution to this debate, I also wish to thank him for providing much more of an opposition than I originally wanted. IIA. Finely-'tuned': My opponent basically argues that ‘intricately designed = finely tuned’. By definition, this is false, as tuning cannot take place if there is nothing ‘out of tune’ (as I’ve previously shown). If god has made everything as he wanted, then no tuning ever took place (which my opponent agrees with, anyway). But this really doesn’t matter. I’m going to argue against the meaning my opponent has provided, instead of wasting time with silly semantic games. I originally let everything until: P1) ‘The universe has a fine-tuner’ slide because it was logically consistent. Now that P1) means: ‘the universe has a designer who makes complex things which require such precision should they be constructed minutely differently, they would fall apart’. So, the meaning is slightly different, and despite me addressing this meaning elsewhere, I’ll do it again to summarise. Again, as he’s done numerous times before, my opponent presents an argument that falls into the necessary paradox of the Intelligent Design argument: demonstrations of omnipotence and omniscience cannot occur simultaneously, yet this is precisely what anyone arguing for Intelligent Design has to overcome in order to make this argument. In arguing that the universe is designed in such a ‘finely-tuned’ way (as he puts it), such that any small change will send things into chaos, and that this is a demonstration of omniscience (i.e. god is limiting itself to creating a ‘finely-tuned’ system to show intelligence), omnipotence cannot be shown at the same time. III. Fine Tuning & Displays of Omnipotence & Omniscience: “There is at least one way that these attributes can both be demonstrated (and thus fulfilling premise 3).” The underlying problem with my opponent’s argument in this section is that it is an argument from final consequence, which is a logical fallacy. He argues that: 1. The universe is complex and looks like it was designed 2. The only thing that could possibly design such a universe is an omnipotent, omniscient god C. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient god exists Another example to demonstrate the idea: 1. My house is on fire 2. I saw someone with matches outside my house earlier C. Therefore, the person with the matches lit my house on fire The problem with both is that whilst there is perceivable evidence that points towards the cause, it doesn’t prove it. A lightning strike could’ve lit my house on fire, for example. Similarly, my opponent’s argument is reliant on the hope that an omniscient, omnipotent god is the only thing that could provide an explanation for such an occurrence. However, it is possible that (just a couple of examples): 1. an omnipotent god and an omniscient god exist, and came together to create such a universe. 2. god is intelligent and capable enough to make the universe, but not omnipotent. 3. through no guidance, the universe came into existence with a burst of energy, and through evolution without a god, moved through different stages. 4. an omnipotent, unintelligent god brought the universe into existence without thought, and it just so happened to turn out like this. As I’ve suggested, there are numerous other ways in which the creation of the universe could be explained. This is why the argument from final consequence is a fallacy. Of course, all of this is to ignore the fact that via Intelligent Design, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be demonstrated at the same time. Appeal to Occam’s Razor “I'm fact such a conclusion [an omnipotent, omniscient god having to exist because of the universe’s existence most likely being spontaneous] is heavily favoured by Occum's Razor in that it makes fewer assumptions.” It doesn’t even matter if it makes the fewest assumptions. It’s egregiously defunct with a logical fallacy and an inherent paradox – Occum’s Razor only applies to things that are logical. A couple of Misc. arguments “So, clearly we have a very sting demonstration of omnipotence, since God clearly changes and manipulates the rules by which the game plays, which is a level beyond which anything bound by the game is capable of doing.” This could be a demonstration of great power, rather than omnipotence. It’s possible that god is not bound by the rules he creates, yet god is bound by other rules that exist outside his creation. “Pro's beef in this case is whether or not this can be a demonstration of omniscience, and her argument against such largely leans on her prior objection that fine tuning allegedly improves a sub-optimal system, which I have already refuted.” No, it doesn’t “largely” lean on that. It largely relies on the omniscient-omnipotence paradox. The fine tuning “beef”, now that we understand that you don’t understand what ‘tuning’ means, is actually an entirely different “beef” to the one you’re suggesting. “In fact her general argument that a 'demonstration of omniscience necessitates the presence of limits' seems patently absurd, and has only seen pragmatic support, rather than logical inductive or deductive support by Pro, and went largely bald asserted.” On the contrary, it’s the fact that anyone making an Intelligent Design argument feels it sufficient an argument, so my counter-response only has to rebut what argument has been given. My opponent is attempting to move the goal-posts (logical fallacy) to set my BoP for any argument against a far less specific god and argument (i.e. not specifically Intelligent Design), when the resolution specifically indicates an omniscient, omnipotent god via Intelligent Design. Harp Analogy My opponent’s harp analogy has the fatal problem all his other arguments do. In showing how the universe needs to be this way, it has to be ‘finely-tuned’, you’re implying that god cannot change anything without it all falling apart, hence indicating his lack of omnipotence. Readers, you should find it no less than exceedingly ironic that the one thing my opponent thinks most proves that god is omnipotent, actually indicates that god is anything but. “Therefore God needs to know exactly how to tune the harp…” If god needs to know how to tune a harp in order to use it properly, then he isn’t demonstrating that he is omnipotent. If he is indicating that he is bound by his own rules, then he isn’t demonstrating omnipotence. “This is very much relevant to our universe, because as I have already argued, any slight variation in either the fundamental constants the universe is tuned to. Or the laws themselves … would over time lead to larger and larger deviation in the conditions that allow for life.” So god can’t create a universe that is differently ‘tuned’, yet still works, is the implication here. Regardless, there is no demonstration of omnipotence. “Virtually every minor matter collision, star birth, planetary accretion and chemical event would need to be foreseen in order to choose a situation suited for life.” Again, god needs to foresee this, or else everything wouldn’t work – god appears to be bound by his own rules. “This easily required an unimaginably intelligent being, and makes for a strong case of an omniscient one.” It could have, and it’s possible that one did. But you’ve proven, by your own implications, that the god in question cannot be omnipotent too. My non-omniscience analogy (the dog one) “It is actually quite amusing that Pro firstly incorrectly uses the slippery slope fallacy, and secondly also provides another excellent analogy to demonstrate this case even further.” I take the fact that you didn’t even explain either of these assertions suggests that you don’t have a counter-argument. Thus far, my analogy stands and is conceded by my opponent. “Similarly with the universe and life, any small deviation from the current optimal conditions would yield fatal consequences, and thus knowledge of the target, and foresight of billions of years of cosmic evolution is required to be successful.” This isn’t even remotely relevant to my analogy. Anyway, so it seems that god needs certain things, or else his universe won’t work. In other words, again, he appears to be non-omnipotent. Conclusion I think that I’ve addressed all of my opponent’s main idea which were relevant to this debate. However, the fundamental reason why the Intelligent Design argument cannot be logically justified is that: Demonstrations of intelligence requires the presence of limits Demonstrations of omnipotence requires the absence of limits It is not that another type of God cannot exist. It is not that there isn’t another compelling argument for God. It is not even that an omnipotent, omniscient god cannot exist. It is, however, that via Intelligent Design, an omnipotent, omniscient god cannot be logically justified, which you’ll find the resolution to be. My opponent has tried numerous arguments throughout this debate. However, I guarantee you that all of them have failed to simultaneously show that via Intelligent Design, god is both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. There is no escaping it; it is the necessary paradox of the Intelligent Design argument. Hopefully, I’ve shown you this inherent paradox, and now you too can make this argument against Intelligent Design. Let’s move the theology debate away from internally defunct arguments like Intelligent Design, because there’s a chance that there is a god, and we should be focusing on debating better arguments. The resolution is absolutely affirmed.