Intelligent design does not exist

1. "So from the claims of Intelligent design we can deduce that the supposed designer is God."In these clauses, my opponent restricts the only possible deity involved in ID to the Abrahamic understanding of God. While this restriction is highly debatable, I choose not to contest this restriction, as I am a Muslim and personally ascribe to the aforementioned understanding.2. "This is an example of the Omnipotence Paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it."If God can lift the rock then he's not omnipotent because he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can't lift the rock than he's not omnipotent because his strength is limited. So either way God is not omnipotent."I will break down and simplify my opponents argument, then I will proceed with the rebuttal.Argument: God is capable of all things. He is all-powerful, un-contradicting, unstoppable.God created a rock that is indestructible, all-powerful, immovable.What happens when God tries to move the rock?The question posed by my opponent is, therefore, the essence of the the question pondered by so many of us:What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Answer/rebuttal:An immovable object can only be defined as an unaccelerateable object. I will explain:According to relativity, all objects are moving based on a separate frame of reference, including said immovable object. A mountain for example, is stationary and immovable from the reference frame of one standing on the ground. But were said individual to hop into a car and begin driving, the the mountain would become movable and indeed begin to move.So the only way it is possible to define an immovable object becomes to do so as an unaccelerateable object, meaning one cannot make it move by directly pushing on it.An unstoppable force must be defined as one who's velocity cannot be changed by external forces. I will explain:The common understanding of force is energy. To say that energy is unstoppable is to say that the energy will continue regardless of external forces. Example:A baseball is hit towards me. Let us say that the energy of the moving baseball is unstoppable. This means that when I catch the baseball, the energy will continue to move. This is by definition the Law of Thermodynamics. This is exactly what happens, and therefore all energy is an unstoppable force.This does not suit the question, and is not the intended meaning. What is intended is an object that cannot be stopped from moving relative to a single frame of reference. In short, it velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it.Thus: An immovable object: An object who's velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it.An unstoppable force: An object who's velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it.With this understanding, there are numerous ways to circumvent this "paradox", the two most simple being an understanding of the unstoppable force as pure energy, or a simple change in reference[1].I remind the voters that my role in this debate is simply to illustrate that my opponents arguments do not rule out the possibility of ID, not to prove my version. I have sufficiently done so for this point.2. The Argument From Free Will"If God is omnipotent he is able to create a being with free will. God must also be omniscient in which case he must know what choice that creature with free will will make. This is a paradox because if God know what choice the creature will make, then that creature doesn't have free will; its choice is already determined. If God doesn't know what choice the creature will make, it does have free will, but then God isn't omniscient because there is something he doesn't know. So either way God does not have one of his defining attributes."My opponent argues here that if God knows what choices his creation will make, then we don't have free will, meaning God forced us into our choices. If we have free will then God does not know what we will do in the future.This is a very simple argument to refute.1. There is nothing within the concept of ID that mandates all creation have free will. In order for this argument to be valid, my opponent must prove that we do indeed have free will.2. This can also be refuted by simply saying: Knowing what someone will do, is not forcing them to do it. Example: I know that person A will marry person B in the future. I did not remove there free will.3. "This is an argument that I created. It goes like this: God is omniscient meaning that he is observing every particle in the universe. In the double slit experiment an electron was shot at two slits and passed through both because it was a wave and when it hit the detector it became a particle. This is called wave function; the double slit experiment showed that a particle is a wave until it is observed; when it becomes a particle its wave function has collapsed. Now if God is omniscient he MUST be observing every particle in the universe. However if this is true then the electrons in the double slit experiment wouldn't have a wave function since they would have been observed by God; but the electrons did have a wave function. Therefore God cannot be omniscient and therefore cannot exist as we presently define him."Here my opponent makes two simple errors, one in his understanding of ID, and one in his understanding of physics.1. Nowhere in the concept of ID does it state that God sees every particle and only particles. My opponents argument is only valid if he can prove that God seeing only particles is in fact a key component of the ID concept.2. Even if my opponent were to prove the contention made in the previous point, his argument would remain faulty. My opponents misunderstanding of the double slit experiment led him to believe that that particles convert to waves and vise versa. This is incorrect, as the actual implications of the experiment indicate that particles tend to move and behave as waves, with some exceptions[2].4."These arguments disprove God because they show that his attributes cause paradoxes.CONCLUSIONBy disproving the designer I have disproved Intelligent Design." Here my opponent makes another simple error in logic. None of said attributes are neccesary to the concept of ID. in order for any of your arguments to be valid, my opponent must first illustrate that ID cannot exist without these attributes.Sources:1. Dr. Henry Reich https://twitter.com...2.University of Oregonhttp://abyss.uoregon.edu...