Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god

I thank baus for his speedy arguments. General rebuttals, addressing main points “I do not believe that the reasoning for intelligent design should be that it had to be designed but simply be that God designed it that complex by his omniscient decision” Hypothetically, in his omniscient state, god has chosen a certain outcome over others, hence demonstrated his intelligence. However, in doing so, he had to limit himself to the most intelligent decision, hence in indicating that he is omniscient, we can only view that simultaneously with the fact that he has shown he is not omnipotent. “Intelligent design should not be reach by the necessity for it but rather by the reality of God's will having chosen to create the universe as it is, has been and will be.” Since God is supposedly choosing to create the universe as it is, rather than another way, then my opponent presumes that god has indicated his will through the design, essentially begging the question. At no stage does he show how the design of ‘creation’ was demonstrated through its existence, rather says that it is a “reality of God’s will having chosen to create the universe as it is”. My opponent needs to reach that conclusion; he cannot simply assume it. “I disagree that the universe being unnecessarily complex could show a lack of understanding in the creator. This would indicate that there is a way to measure reality's complexity and compare it against how complex reality must be via necessity alone. this is not possible and therefore no one can ever know how necessary it is for the universe to be as complex as it is at that moment in time unless they were omniscient, which no human being is.” In arguing that there is no way for humans to understand how complex that creation (everything God created) would have to be, in order to know that it was designed, my opponent unwittingly argues against the reason Intelligent Design offers for creation: God’s intelligently designed creation. In simpler terms, in saying that we can’t know God’s existence is God’s existence, he effectively argues that we can’t know the universe was created by God, hence he no longer has any argument for God, via Intelligent Design. “The reason that a television with excessive wiring indicates a lack of understanding in the producer is that, that wiring costs to corporation more to produce the television, and so if the wiring were taken out they could be making more profit by having less expenditure, leaving them with more disposable income.” If there is no obstacle-goal relationship in the supposed God’s creation of the universe (i.e. there was no reason to be efficient), then you cannot say that the universe is a product of infinite-intelligence. My opponent has again refuted the Intelligent Design argument by arguing that we can’t know if God is demonstrating His intelligence, hence the resolution stands affirmed, on this point. “God, however, is not serving any economy when creating the universe and cannot possibly get richer or poorer as he/she/it is omnipotent.” Not only is my opponent assuming that efficiency is stringently a concept of economics, but he’s forfeiting a component of the Intelligent Design argument. In God not showing efficiency in His creation, he is showing that he is not intelligent enough to be more efficient. Alternatively, if my opponent argues that efficiency is not a goal that an omniscient being should strive for, then the creation of the universe lacks demonstration of infinite-intelligence. I refer readers back to what I said earlier: ‘Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components: 1. He is infinitely-intelligent 2. He is omnipotent’ This God has, by my opponent’s argument, failed to demonstrate his intelligence. “I am not sure where, in the R1 … and definition that they, themselves,w rote for intelligent design.” My opponent has elected not to argue ‘fine tuning’ (which is a common argument for Intelligent Design), in conjunction with intelligent design. Therefore, I will drop this contention. “What is erroneous is to assume that God needs to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it… (the rest of the paragraph)” The resolution does not pertain as to whether such a god exists, rather, it’s whether a person can argue logically for one. “Here is where Pro's definition of omnipotence will, indeed, 'omnimagnificently' whack their argument out of consideration:” “Pro, in round 1, states that having omnipotence is having universal power, authority and force. I put the 'and' instead of 'or' as this is actually what Pro meant otherwise their case is even easier to disprove.” Stop playing arbitrary semantics, please. “Nowhere, in this definition, does it indicate that to qualify as having universal power, authority and force, the omnipotent being must be capable of limiting its power.” The resolution pertains to being able to demonstrate such powers, so that a human may logically argue for them. If God is limiting his powers, in the creation of the universe, wherein such creation of the universe is meant to indicate his nature and existence, then he has failed to show his omnipotence through creation, and the Intelligent Design argument is inherently flawed. “Nonetheless, I shall even go as far as to prove that Pro's definition of God and the ability to be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient all can coincide as long as temporal limitations on his potency are permitted to be placed… (including the “possibilities” that follow)” The underlying flaws of each impending scenarios are as follows: 1. God is not demonstrating omnipotence and omniscience at the same time, hence he is failing to indicate his existence 2. He has yet to do any of these things, hence there is no supposed proof of his existence. 3. The resolution specifically calls for arguments from Intelligent Design, not arguments from creating a double, or placing a “metaphorical time-bomb” on Himself. Please, read the resolution. Also, again, the resolution does not set-up a debate wherein we can see if God can exist. The debate is about whether God can be logically justified, by humans, via the Intelligent Design argument. As I have shown, my opponent digresses onto irrelevancies, in this section. “Additionally, the theory that god is incapable of relinquishing his power, due to some innate lust for it, would indicate that he lacks the ability to no longer want power.” This is a strawman of my arguments. I never argued that God had a “lust” for his omnipotence. I argued that, via Intelligent Design, it is inherently contradictory for God to demonstrate omnipotence and omniscience, to us humans. Hence, a logical argument cannot follow from the premise of Intelligent Design. “God is able to not want power at all times and temporarily restrict himself with it, as he showed via Jesus.” Not that this argument is at all relevant to the debate, but: 1. You’ve yet to prove that Jesus existed 2. You’ve yet to prove that Jesus was what you’re implying here (i.e. Son of God, messenger of God) If my opponent wants to make a claim like this, then the BoP is on him to prove it. The resolution is affirmed.