Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

Con says "in regards to understanding the nature & cause of the universe comes to an end. We've finished the discovery," Con objects to intelligent design on the basis that a cause of the universe ends science discovery in that area. But what about claims that the universe had a cause, (but not necessarily) a intelligent cause, say for instance gravity. Would Con object to this on the grounds of, oh no, we can't accept that, once we reach a cause of the universe science ends and we can't have that. I doubt Con would take this approach, I suspect Con only uses this line of argument when their is an intelligence cause claimed to be the cause of the universe. Con says ""This explains process, it doesn't say one way or another if the process has its origins in intent. " I've explained why, it's for the intent/purpose of adapting to the environment" I'm going to be real nice here, and give con the opportunity to reword that statement, and here is why. .. . purï¿½pose (pï¿½rps) n. 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" (Sarah Josepha Hale). 2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... inï¿½tent (n-tnt) n. 1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention. 2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Purpose and Intent are dependent on a mind for its existence. If evolution and or the universe has purpose or intent their is a mind behind it. There is your justification for believing in an intelligent cause. Con says " Consider a music CD. If the songs on the CD are less than 5 minutes long it doesn't necessarily follow that the entire CD is less than 5 minutes long " I agree. But what if you were to argue that before you could listen to one song, but before that song is another, and before that another. .. .. .. .. .. unto infinity, with their being no first song. I would point out the impossibility of this infinite regress. What if you were to make the argument, that by adding one song of 5 mins, then another of 5 minutes, then another, would lead to an infinity of songs ? In this case I would point out that you can't get to infinity by successive addition. Finite + Finite = Finite Actual infinities don't exist in the physical world/universe. Con says "I've been saying that the universe exists by virtue of its necessity, and all of its subsequent parts exist by contingency " I find this interesting, it seems to be that Con is claiming that the universe is uncaused, but things within the universe are caused. If this is the case I would ask some questions for clarification Is the universe the sum of it parts ? Is the universe something different other than the totality of its part ? If the universe is the sum of its parts, Con is arguing that the universe is uncaused/eternal/infinite while its parts are caused/finite. I think we have good reason to reject this on its incoherence alone. Is it more plausible that. .. . 1) A finite universe is made up of finite parts, or 2) An infinite universe is made up of finite parts, me personally I am going with option 1. Con stills contends the first premise of my first argument. .. .. "Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause" I'm pretty sure that Con is typing their objections on a keyboard. I would ask is this keyboard the product of design ? I'm pretty sure Con is looking at a monitor as they read my objections, I would ask, is this monitor the product of an intelligent cause ? The point being, intelligence cause and design go hand in hand, why Con would object to this self evident principle is beyond me. Unto the 2nd premise. .. .. .. .. . 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. " Now Con objects to this "deduction" of design. Con says " Was their environment the intelligent cause of their individual unique features? No because my opponent would not attribute intelligence to the natural world" The natural world is a process, I already gave argument where unintelligent process can be the result of intent (such as a watch). You have not proven this false. Con objects to this claim. .. .. . ""But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent. " - this has been refuted by my second argument, that primitive things can lead to more complex things as long as the need to evolve" How the hell does evolutionary process disprove the claim that only something with intelligence is capable of intent ? Maybe Con believes things such as guns (which have no intelligence) are capable of intent. What's that saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Why haven't I ever seen a gun sent to prison ? oh that's right cause guns don't have intelligence thus can't have intent to kill. Unto the 2nd premise of the argument. .. . 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts Con says "My opponent then proceeds to BEG THE QUESTION by asking the reader. .. "At this point I would ask anyone to consider. .. .. .. .. .. " Lets look at what it means to question beg. "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise" Since Con objected to my 2nd premise I then went on to look at its premise, and its negation and compare the two, and give argument for why it should be believed over its negation. This is NOT question begging, it just standard argument. Now Con argues that complexity does indeed exist, but is absent any intelligent cause. Now Con doesn't disagree that an unintelligent process can be the result of intent, (like a watch), and I don't disagree that complexity can result absent of intent like (evolution. ) But the question at hand is, does this process have its origins in an intelligent cause or a cause absent of intelligence ? My argument is that the result of a process can give us reason to make this distinction. For instance if we came across a fully automated car plant (and thus all processes were absent intent) that produced cars, we would still be rational to conclude that the cars are the result of intent, due to the complexity of the working parts of the cars, not just in themselves but working together complimentary. 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts Compare to its negation which is -2) No Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts Once again I claim, that premise 2 is more plausible than its negation. Note, I only scanned your link, there is an 8000 maximum word limit, you can't go around that by posting arguments from links thanks. My argument still is. .. .. .. .. . 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts. 3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. 4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design. 5) Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause.