Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

For this round, I will present an additional argument and then examine what my opponent has said. There are a few odd changes in conduct for my opponent but I will continue the debate in stride. ======== ARGUMENT ======== 1) Is the Universe Contigent? My opponent claims that just because the parts are contingent that therefore the whole is contingent. He does this in regards to the following rebuttal, "Is Con arguing for an infinite regress ? Con is saying that their is no first cause, cause every effect in the universe is preceded by a cause in the universe.". When this is untrue. Just because the parts within the universe are contingent doesn't mean the universe itself is contingent. To say this is the case is to fall into the fallacy of composition. 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 [1]. The universe necessarily exists in order for there to exist its subsequent contingent parts. My opponent has made no arguments for why the universe is contingent, and neither have I. I've been saying that the universe exists by virtue of its necessity, and all of its subsequent parts exist by contingency - not by intelligent, willed, self-conscious design by some greater being. ======= RESPONSE ======= In regards to definition problems - I have to work with what I have even if the definition is vague and ambiguous. Solid conduct there to not examine what I'm trying to say. " I also never claimed the intelligent designer was "complex"." Like what does this mean, what is the difference between an intelligent and a nonintelligent being? You say humans and watches are comparable to humans and the intelligent designer (because we exist by design) but humans are no different prescriptively than any other material being on this planet (as I have said). You make no differentiation and you just say "oh I never said that, moving on". This debate is losing its substance. Straw man, I never argued from ignorance - see again, "I never did this" "I never did that" - he refuses to acknowledge my claims and just skips them over. "Utter false hood" -> Once again dodging the argument. It does mean that science, in regards to understanding the nature & cause of the universe comes to an end. We've finished the discovery, it's some intelligent designer, who cares to know otherwise. My opponent refused to actually acknowledge this argument and just skipped it - he said what I've said is utter falsehood, but he's never mentioned why. "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. "1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. Con claims they refuted this, my response is LOLZ, rest assured when people get in their cars, they will think that the car was designed therefore it has an intelligent cause," Once again, odd conduct - "LOLZ" - and he appeals to the opinions of people getting in their cars to make his refutation. I am truly puzzled when I read this. My opponent then proceeds to BEG THE QUESTION by asking the reader... "At this point I would ask anyone to consider........... Is it more plausible that humans beings exist by intent ? or more plausible humans being exist absent any intent ?" What proceeds from this is not a logical argument but simple rhetoric aimed to appealing to the reader. He misuses ambiguous terms like "intent" & "absence of intent" - not acknowleding my rebuttal that he has misconstrued and almost redefined the terms in comparison to terms like PURPOSE and CAUSE. My opponent has further restated his syllogism "1) Something exists either because its caused or uncaused 2) If something is caused, then its cause has intent or absent intent 3) Humans don't exist because they are uncaused or absent intent 4) Therefore humans exist by intent" But this syllogism provides no new logical foundation to grasp. It's the same regurgitated syllogism that commits the assertion fallacy - he is just asserting points but there is no logical root for these points. Furthermore, to be frank, the grammar in the syllogism is really bad (I try to be as polite as I can here but it's 2 rounds that I tolerate this) and the syllogism doesn't really make sense. For premises 2 & 3 there are two options, but somehow we discern one of those options by the conclusion (4). ======= SUMMARY ======= For this round, my opponent has made no new arguments. My opponent has further not sufficiently rebutted my rebuttals. He has merely dismissed them and regurgitated his own. In response, I've rebuilt my arguments and constructed an additional argument. I believe I have been sufficient so far in constructing my case. Let's review From My Opponent: 1) To rebuild his first argument - he begs the question "At this point I would ask anyone to consider...........", and he gives us his two options "exist by intent or absent of intent". These become very ambiguous in his argument (or lack thereof), because there is no real argument made for why existing with intent automatically leads us to an intelligent designer. I've shown that humans have evolved with the intent to survive (and all of this is done via natural, primitive processes described the evolution. The origins of which are purposeless, random and dynamic). The design of human beings is like all biological beings, to survive. My opponent hasn't contested this. 2) To rebuild his second argument - well, he hasn't. He's restated his syllogism in a grammar that is difficult to understand. I hope he clears himself up for the next round. From me: 1) For my first argument, that intelligent design is really unintelligent, my opponent has said this, "This is just an appeal to unpleasant consequences.". I ask, is concluding that the nature of the universe is caused by some vague, ambiguous "intelligent" "designer" an unpleasant consequence? Or is it unscientific and irrational? Is it both? Appealing to this "unpleasant consequences" is odd. Obviously when someone is being irrational it is unpleasant, I see no rebuttal being made here. 2) For my 2nd argument - this has not been contested. My opponent has said nothing of how complex beings come into existence by the process of purposeless evolution from simpler beings. 3) I've present a new argument - that the universe can necessarily exist (sourced below) without the need for an intelligent designer. There is no longer an issue of "infinite regress" in the debate. I conclude this round once again successful for side opposition. Vote Opp! [1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...