Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

Con says "I hope you won't tell me that watches/keyboards break too, because then this grandeur of intelligent design will crumble." My argument never claimed intelligent design has grandeur........STRAWMAN Con says "I've mentioned in Round 1 why working parts don't necessarily imply a uniform, prescriptive design" I never argued about a uniformed design............STRAWMAN Con says "Prescriptively speaking, the universe is not the sum of its parts" That means that the universe is something other than time space and matter and forces. How interesting. Con says "space is just a necessary existent that allows for us to recognize physical objects (for where else will they exist?" So far Con has claimed that the universe exists out of necessity, and space exists out of necessity. All these things existing out of necessity next thing you know Con will argue that a personal being exists out of necessity.........or maybe not. Con asks "I've asked previously in the debate and on Point 2 - what does my opponent mean by intelligence and how is it distinguished from any other form of development/creation" Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving.http://en.wikipedia.org... Yeah intelligence is still a bit iffy, but you know what, Time is still a bit iffy, but we don't deny its existence just because its a bit vague. Con asks "Out of interest, I'd like to ask, if these parts fail and do not work complimentary, does that mean the human being is no longer designed?" How does something become "undesigned" either something had its origins in design or it didn't. The short answer is no. Con says "If an intelligent cause has designed something to work, it puzzles me why it wouldn't work intelligently and thus without fail" Yeah your right, if something no longer works properly then this proves that their was no intelligent design, brilliant argument, from this principle we can infer every car, watch, computer,house, electronic device, swimming pool, humans has no origins in intent due to it breaking down, sounds like a rock solid argument to me. In a total evolutionary process that is absent of any intent in its origins, something can't be "faulty". Evolution has no mind/intelligence/intent in which it produces something, its an aimless, unintelligent, unconscious, unintended, process. A fault is when something deviates from which is was intended to be, for instance, a broken watch that than no longer tells the time, a keyboard that no longer allows the typing of letter on a computer. If we accept that humans are indeed faulty..... 1) Something being faulty is the deviation of what it was intended to be 2) Humans beings are faulty 3) Therefore humans have their origins in intent Con affirms premise 2 when they said "Out of interest, I'd like to ask, if these parts fail and do not work complimentary, does that mean the human being is no longer designed? If an intelligent cause has designed something to work, it puzzles me why it wouldn't work intelligently and thus without fail." 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. I am curious, how do you define "design" ? since you actually objected to premise 1 Going back to premise 2 "Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts." It would be a mistake to think that how we deduce design is only a question that applies to the origins of everything. For instance in archeology when they come across some artifact the question is raised, is this the product of some ancient civilisation ? As humans go into space, again if we come across various things out there, and who knows what we find, the question will once again be raised, is this thing we have discovered a natural phenomenal or is there intent involved . Speaking of space, we have ventured into space and observed some of space, and suffice to say compared to earth, its very very big place (this would be the understatement of the century perhaps) But in case you haven't noticed, life outside earth is very.......how shall we say rare. But why would it be rare, after all evolution ensures that life adapts to its environment to survive, well this isn't happening outside of earth. Where is all the life that would adapt to different environments, the heat of mars, the coldness of Pluto, the thin air of space etc. There is more than enough space out there and different environments, so this can't be the reason for the absence of other life. There is nothing about earth that makes evolution possible, and the other environments evolution impossible, remember evolution is all about change and adapting to what ever the environment is. Maybe you have heard about how the universe we live in, is a life permitting universe, after all, humans are life, humans exist in the universe, there fore the universe is life permitting. Although technically correct, maybe a better generalization would be to say the earth is life permitting and outside of earth its very very hostile to life, as evidenced by the lack of life outside of earth. Out of interest I'd like to ask if evolution is not producing life outside of earth that is suitable to its environment, does that mean evolution is no longer a process absent any intent ? If evolution is so good at producing life to suit its environment it puzzles me why it wouldn't work outside of earth just as much as on earth. I hope you won't tell me that evolution can only work as well on earth, and not outside of earth, because then the grandeur of evolution will crumble. It seems to me CON still wont accept the necessary link between an act of intent and intelligence. Does Con agree that their computer has its origins in an intelligent cause ? Does Con agree that because their computer had its origins in an intelligent cause its exists by intent ?