Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (5)

Paper & SimplicityCon says that my argument implies that if something is simple it is more probable that is not designed. I dis agree with this claim for example, although the paper is simple, it is the product of many complex causes. If the paper was the product absent these complex causes then yes my argument would say that its more probable that it is not designed. As I said before, my argument only says complex things, things with complimentary parts are more likely to be designed.Evidence and explanations of the evidenceCon says " I never said you needed to see something to believe in it. But you should be able to observe it. And while we can't see gravity or electricity or radiation or ultraviolet, we can observe them."Once again, gravity is not observed, what is observed is such things as motion of objects, the number on the scale machine etc. I think its worth repeating again....... "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena"A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν), plural phenomena or phenomenons, is any observable occurrence. Fine Tuning and the DesignerCon says "if not an Intelligent Designer? The answer is "I don't know, though it was probably chance", and I don't need to argue the rationality of a different theory. I only need to argue the irrationality of the Intelligent Designer theory (which, like the irrationality of any theory, resides in its lack of evidence)."Con is correct that as far as this debate is concerned they don't have to argue for the rationality of another theory. But Con does say it was probably by chance. Con is free to say that, but I would point out Con has not provided any argument to support this "chance" as being the most probable, that which can be asserted without proof can be rejected without proof.Con says "My opponent seems to be assuming that the values of the physical properties of our universe (the force of gravity, electromagnetic force, etc.) are the only values suitable to contain life, but this is only a baseless speculation. If the values had been different, it would be reasonable to assume life would still exist, but in a different way in order to compensate the different universe's physical challenges."The claim that had the values being different then its reasonable to assume life would still exists is baseless speculation. Fine Tuning and Occum's RazorCon says "I wasn't going to debate under the premise of the Big Bang (as I don't believe in it), but since you won't argue the stance I do believe in, then let us both assume I believe in the Big Bang (no problem)."I will be arguing as if you do believe in the big bang and your arguments on it, as you say lets assume.Con brings up a new objection and says "The Big Bang was the first event in the history of our universe, and was therefore uncaused. Adding an Intelligent Designer, which would also be uncaused, to explain this uncaused event would be adding an unnecessary and unsatisfactory step."I don't think adding an uncased intelligent designer is an unnecessary step for the following reasons.....1) You can't get something from nothing2) That which begins to exist has a causeCon is arguing that you can get something from nothing, as well as arguing that something happened which is not caused (the big bang). According to Con the big bang is something that happened, without a cause either intelligent or non intelligent or natural or supernatural. If something from nothing is a "rational' claim especially a life permitting universe having its origins in nothing, then I don't think Con has any grounds for affirming an uncaused intelligent designer as "irrational". I ask the vote go the Pro.I thank Con for participating in this debate.