Via Intelligent Design, an infinitely-inteligent, creator god cannot be logically justified

I thank Envisage for his arguments. II. The Fine Tuning Argument P3) If the universe has a fine tuner, it is all-powerful and all-knowing, and the creator In the interest of saving time, I’m going straight for the throat. The fundamental problem, the one in which I instigated this debate upon, lies within this 3rd premise. This 3rd premise cannot be shown true, as the resolution specifies. Allow me to clarify: The resolution reads, “Via Intelligent Design, an infinitely-intelligent, creator god cannot be logically justified”. We’re not debating as to whether one could exist, rather we’re debating as to whether one can be logically justified. Justify: “to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right” [3]. If I were to say that, for example, a murder was justified, I would have to give significant reason as to why. If I were to say that the murder was justified, and that the reason was that it could have been ‘right’ (i.e. morally permissible), then I have not logically justified this murder. An omnipotent, omniscient god could exist, but… As it stands, it is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists, it’s just that we are incapable of logically justifying him via Intelligent Design. You cannot look at something and determine whether it is intelligent or not. The standard in which humans gauge intelligence is a test, and in order to sit a test, one must limit his/herself to the testing conditions. So, when god would show his omniscience, he cannot, at the same time, demonstrate omnipotence. Yet this is precisely the contradiction that is required for any Intelligent Design argument! Let me make some distinctions clear: 1. It is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists 2. It is not possible for god to demonstrate such attributes at the same time 3. Hence, via Intelligent Design (i.e. via one instance of god’s power, which is the creation of everything), it is not possible to logically justify an omniscient, omnipotent god It’s possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. It’s possible that Santa Claus exists. However, that does not mean that the existence of these entities are logically justifiable. A fine-tuning, omniscient, omnipotent god Next, it’s possible that a fine-tuner of the universe exists. Since the verb to ‘tune’implies that there must be something/someone doing the tuning [1]. verb : to make small changes to (something) in order to make it work better What is not possible, is that this fine-tuner could be an omniscient, omnipotent god. How could an omnipotent god create everything, and then feel the need to tune it, if he knows everything and would not make the mistake in the first place? Conversely, if there was no problem, then there would be no tuning, as to tune something requires it to be ‘out of tune’ beforehand. Do you see the problem with this? God seeing that his creation requires tuning shows that god has created everything in a way he didn’t want, hence he must tune it to the way he wants. Let me repeat that: god seeing that his creation requires tuning shows that god has created everything in a way he didn’t want. In my opponent arguing that ‘god’s creation’ was finely tuned, he is essentially arguing that god cannot be shown omnipotent and omniscient! In other words, would a being that is omnipotent and omniscient have to amend something? Again, tuning implies that something has been done in a way which is not wanted. So, get this, a being which knows everything, AND is omnipotent, has created everything in a way which he did not want. He knew that what he was doing was not what he wanted, yet he created it anyway! Does this not sound ridiculous to you? Does this not seemingly defy his own supposed nature? Defence of Premise 3 “These cosmological constants are tied into the very clockwork of how our universe operates. It goes without saying that any being that is capable of manipulating these is a being that is all-powerful.” This does not go without saying. If god is only capable of manipulating these “cosmological constants”, in other words: playing by the rules in which he created, then he isn’t demonstrating omnipotence. “It’s like a person who can change the rules of a chess game, the shape of the board, and how the pieces move while the game is being played. Clearly the person doing such has abilities and power that no thing confined within the rules is comparable to, much less above.” This is an isolated demonstration of omnipotence. The resolution requires simultaneous demonstrations of omnipotence and omniscience. In this example, we would need to know why changing aspects of the chessboard showed intelligence. However, in having this demonstration of intelligence, my opponent would not be able to work around the fact that in having a goal in which to show intelligence, god would have to limit himself to that goal. “for this being to perform this extent of fine tuning, they must be able to foresee billions of years of stellar & universal evolution, and understand the very fundamental fabric of the universe itself.” The implications of what my opponent wrote here are riddled with contradictions. It’s funny how god must be able to “foresee billions of years of stellar & universal evolution”, or else thing won’t go according to plan, despite god also being omniscient and omnipotent. It’s funny how god has to understand the very fundamental fabric of the universe that he created, or else he won’t be able to fine-tune correctly for the mistakes that he made, despite also being omnipotent and omniscient, which would suggest that he would be able to avoid these mistakes in the first place. “Which is knowledge that many scientists and philosophers resign to never being able to know for themselves, thus fulfilling that this being must be omniscient.” This is a slippery slope fallacy [2]. My opponent makes the woeful argument that because scientists and philosophers do not know (others are limited), that whatever knows must be omniscient (extreme). It looks like this: 1. My dog is faster than all the other dogs in the neighbourhood (others are limited) 2. Therefore, my dog is the fastest to have ever existed (extreme) It is possible that god could be smarter than those people in knowing things they do not, yet also non-omniscient. My opponent’s example here does not demonstrate omniscience. III. Rebuttals: Complexity: “Pro's argument against complexity is not relevent yet to this debate” Not true. Things that created with unnecessary complexity demonstrate a level of lacking in intelligence. To argue that ‘creation’ was so complex that it had to be designed, which is essentially the Intelligent Design argument, defies how humans test for intelligence. Fine tuning & an Omnipotent God: “Moreover even if Pro's argument was valid, it only shows god is performing at a certain 'power level'. Someone who is capable of lifting 100 kgs can also lift 10 kgs, there is no contradiction here.” If god is meant to demonstrate his omnipotence via the creation of everything, yet in doing so is limiting himself, then he has not shown that his omnipotent. This is not to say that he is not omnipotent, rather that he has not demonstrated omnipotence. “As for why, I don't see a reason why I need to supply it, but just to throw one out there, it may well be logically impossible to create a universe where it was not finely tuned to accomplish the results that god wanted. We just don't know.” It may well be the case that it was logically impossible to create a universe where it was not finely tuned. However, in saying that “we just don’t know”, my opponent concedes that he’s missing all two of the components required for an Intelligent Design argument: 1. Demonstration of omnipotence 2. Demonstration of omniscience Without my opponent being able to give reasons as to why god chose a certain design, there is no demonstration of omniscience (because we don’t know what the goal was and if it was achieved in the best way possible), and there is no demonstration of omnipotence (because we don’t know if god was without limits in designing it the way he did). Where exactly I stand It is fundamentally impossible to argue via Intelligent Design that an omniscient, omnipotent god exists. You can prove that the universe was finely tuned. You can give strong evidence for the existence of a god. You can argue that the Intelligent Design could work if god wasn’t omnipotent. But if you put them all together, and try to argue with them simultaneously, you can do nothing but contradict yourself. Again: Demonstrations of intelligence requires the presence of limits Demonstrations of omnipotence requires the absence of limits The resolution is affirmed. References [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.nizkor.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...