Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

Thank you. For this final round of the debate, I will be summarizing both sides of the debate and show why Con has won the debate. I would like to thank Pro for participating diligently for the last five rounds - there has been a lot of intense discussion and a lot of time was put into each 8000 character response. Throughout this debate, there is a noticeable progression on both sides. Both from prop and opp, we've noticed a crystallization of the major themes purveyed in the debate. However, from the proposition's side, what became two length syllogisms that were vigorously argued for the earlier parts of the date were later compressed and simplified into one simple statement, "that humans or anything else having multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts, is more likely due to having its origins in intent, rather than having no intent involved at all, and as such is a intelligent design is a rational position. " On the other hand, from Con - the argument has developed and grown to span a number of areas including questioning the nature of the universe, discovering the nature of the various parts of the universe and how they relate to the origins and development of humans themselves - a topic central to the debate. Readers, I would like to state very clearly, that even in his last statement, my opponent further conceded a point and has made no further rebuttals. His argumentation is weak and implicit, and his been rebutted sufficiently throughout the debate (as will be summarized later). He says I make "claims" - implying as though they were false (and even if he weren't, that makes the pointing this out even further irrelevant) but makes no logical and reasonable argumentation to dispute this. And so, I'd like to summarize the case on both parts and explain why CON deserves your vote in the various categories of this website. =============== ARGUMENTS FROM PRO =============== As mentioned previously, PRO started with two length and descriptive syllogisms that meant to describe the nature of human design (this design having existed with intent) and hence why the existence of such a design necessitates the existence of an intelligent designer. My opponent argued this from 2 standpoints. These were his ONLY 2 arguments in the debate. 1) Human beings exist as a series of parts working cooperatively and in complimentary activity with each other --> thus entailing an "intelligent" design of sorts. 2) Anything that is designed is designed with an intent. Intentional design can only be brought about by a self-conscious external will that allows for this to come into existence. Hence the premises follow the conclusion that by definition this intentional design can only be brought into existence by an intelligent designer. =============== ARGUMENTS FROM CON =============== From side opposition I've argued at the very root of the issues in the debate why intelligent design is untrue and thus irrational. I've looked at what it means to exist and I've shown there is no distinguishable intelligence that my opponent purports and why therefore a necessarily existing universe can presuppose a purposeless existence of its subsequent parts that develop and grow and "design" themselves around the volatile conditions within the universe. To summarize: 1) Intelligent design is fruitless - my opponent conceded that his own definitions of intelligence are vague and ambiguous. This furthers this point immensely - it proves the case that even assigning the nature of the universe and human beings to an intelligent designer gives us no further foundation or understanding of the reality we observe. Besides the semantic of intelligent design - the theory is meaningless and so it's therefore irrational - for it provides no further reasoning then we have prior to believing it. 2) Nothing in the universe is intelligently designed - my opponent has conceded in his final round statement that carbon atoms and any other fundamental substances are not intelligently designed. He also didn't dispute the fact that we, humans, who he claims are intelligently designed, aren't made up of these substances. I would like to then state once more that because these fundamental substances are our foundations - and our foundations are not intelligently designed (as I have argued and my opponent conceded) - it therefore follows that we are not intelligently designed. 3) The universe exists necessarily - my opponent has tried to reach for an idea that the universe exists contingently and that its entire existence is explained by an intelligent designer. I've sufficiently disputed this claim - I've also demonstrated how concepts like space & time cannot exist contingently - for they are necessary for any form of contingency to exist. For how can something spatially exist without space? Or how can something COME into existence without time? These questions require us to come to recognize the fact that space & time necessarily exist, and so it follows that these components being essential to the universe give us reason to believe the universe itself exists necessarily. ======= IN SHORT ======= While my opponent points to the complexity and cooperation that exist between multiple parts to give impression of a certain intelligent design - such as a watch or a keyboard or even a human being - as reason for believing in an intelligent designer - I have effectively disputed this as summarized by the syllogism below. P1) We exist materially as a conglomeration of subatomic particles P2) Subatomic particles exist without intent or any form of inherent intelligent design C) We exist without intent or any form of inherent intelligent design. I've further explained why these subatomic particles exist contingent to a necessarily existing, purposeless, non-intelligently designed and absent of intent universe. It is with these two essential claims that I have outlined throughout this debate that I declare intelligent design untrue and irrational. For to believe in non-truth is a delusion - a direct opposite of what it means to be rational. Unicorns do not exist, to believe in them is irrational - likewise an intelligent designer doesn't exist - therefore it is irrational to have a belief in such an idea. ============ VOTE BREAKDOWN ============ Who had better conduct? While I'm not appealing for the vote, I would like to point several instances where debate conduct has been in one sense or another broken by my opponent. Firstly, with comments like ". .. Con claims they refuted this, my response is LOLZ, rest assured when people get in their cars. .. " and ". .. I'm going to be real nice here, and give con the opportunity to reword that statement, and here is why. .. " - not only do these comments degrade me as an opponent but also degrade the purpose of my arguments which is to have a healthy debate. I'd further point out the fact that my opponent conceded to having a vague definition in the FOURTH round of the debate. .. "Yeah intelligence is still a bit iffy, but you know what". It made it very difficult to continue the debate but I tried to recoup based on what has been said by the opponent since then. Who had more convincing arguments? I hope that my summary above, my opponents remarks and your own reasonable judgement will make the right decision. However I would like for you to also recognize the number of instances of my opponent begging the question & using implicit argumentation. Who had more reliable sources? I've referenced a number of reliable sources from the internet as well as grounded, factual scientific research that has been widely accepted. I hope you as the voter will recognize and give the appropriate vote.