Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god

#1 “CR: “There is no 'most intelligent decision' or 'most intelligent design' this design is intelligent because the one creating it used its intellect to design it,not because it's the most intelligent design foreseeable.” Given that an omniscient God knows everything, would you not assume that such a God would use the most intelligent design for His creation (i.e. the simplest)? If not, then how is his omniscient nature indicated by His creation? “It is not the design that is intelligent, it is the creator. Pro's definition itself has no indication that ID necessitates this design itself as being intelligent, only the causative agent of it as intelligent…” With the term ‘intelligent design’, it is assumed that the design indicates intelligence. The definition I provided was: [intelligent design] is an argument for the existence of god or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world". My opponent is unfairly playing semantics. #2 CS: “We can know that the universe was created by God simply by the way that everything fits together in reality itself.” Simply having everything “fit together” is not a demonstration of omniscience. The most intelligent demonstration (since God is supposedly omniscient), is one that is the simplest. It is possible that everything could fit together, yet not be the simplest way of producing the desired result. Having said this, because making things fit together is not necessarily a demonstration of omniscience, my opponent is still missing a component of Intelligent Design: demonstration of infinite-intelligence. Hence, the extensions made under the #2 point beg the question, because the premise is incorrectly assumed. #3 “God needn't demonstrate powers to have them, thus to argue for them is a capability of any human, especially via ID.” In order for humans to logically argue for them, via Intelligent Design, they would need to be demonstrated. Again, my opponent struggles to make the relevant distinction between: 1. God having said powers 2. God demonstrating said powers If God has not demonstrated said powers, then via Intelligent Design (not necessarily all arguments for God), it is logically impossible to argue for them, because the Intelligent Design argument requires simultaneous demonstration of them. “The resolution discusses the capability of humans to argue logically for God via ID, it doesn't discuss the validity of the arguments themselves.” My opponent has plagiarised Envisage’s comment in the comment section of this debate, because he has not given credit reference for the work used (it’s not that he can’t use them, it’s that he didn’t give credit). My opponent should immediately lose conduct points, based on this. To argue logically for God, your arguments would have to be valid. That’s why I used the word “pertains”, because the validity of argument is *related* to being logically. #4 “1. In the twin scenario he is demonstrating both at the same time. On top of this, God does not need to demonstrate both simultaneously, he can do them one by one. Furthermore, god doesn't need to demonstrate attributes in order to possess them.” Your twin scenario isn’t the Intelligent Design argument. We’re debating a specific way in proving the existence of God (i.e. Intelligent Design), NOT any way. On top of this, my opponent fails to grasp the argument that is Intelligent Design. The whole point of the Intelligent Design argument is that in creating everything, God has demonstrated both omnipotence and omniscience at the same time. Furthermore, God does need to demonstrate attributes, in order for the Intelligent Design argument to have its premises. “2. God doesn't need to prove his existence to exist.” He does for the Intelligent Design argument to be valid. “3. Capability to argue is inherent in the very idea of ID to begin with, since it necessitate God's existence as an axiom.” The resolution reads “arguing logically”, and does not just refer to capability to simply argue. Please read the resolution. “The argument for God via ID is that the design indicates an intelligent designer. I am a human and I made this logical argument. Whether this argument is valid or not is irrelevant to my capability to make it.” You would not be arguing logically to simply state the premise of your argument, and then stop. “If you choose to deny that I am a human being, you have the Burden of Proof to prove what else I may be” Wrong. You would have the BoP to first prove that you are a human being. Besides, whether or not you’re a human is irrelevant to this debate. #5 “This means that formally arguing itself is inherently logical.” In arguing for God, via Intelligent Design, you cannot do anything but argue illogically, as I have demonstrated numerous times. Again: Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations. Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations. The illogical part comes in arguing for the existence of such a God, via Intelligent Design. The argument for God, via Intelligent Design, is inherently contradictory, as I have demonstrated. #6 “Until god has a reason to need to be more efficient he is capable of choosing not to perform at full efficiency.” As efficiency is the way in which humans determine intelligence (i.e. making things as simple as possible), then my opponent leaves himself without an argument for the omniscience of God being demonstrated, via Intelligent Design. #7 “God does not need to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it.” In regards to the resolution of this debate (i.e. via Intelligent Design), God needs do that. #8 “It is whether a person is capable of arguing logically for one.” Which no one is capable of doing, as I’ve demonstrated. To even begin to argue for God, via Intelligent Design, is to assume that complex things are the result of omniscient beings. The Intelligent Design argument is inherently contradictory. “…This gap in logic necessitated God, via the process of elimination.” My opponent makes the woeful argument that: 1. Because something is unexplained and there is currently no explanation 2. It must be God that did it Is it not possible that there could be future scientific discoveries, for example, that would show it was not God who did it? Therefore, my opponent incorrectly assumes that God is the only logical explanation for such a phenomenon, when it is entirely possible an alternative, plausible explanation exists. Besides, this argument isn’t exactly the Intelligent Design argument. “God would have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be both the source of all power in our universe and intelligent enough to have created its entirety.” Via Intelligent Design, God cannot be proven both omnipotent and omniscient. Not only that, but you’re assuming that it was a God that did it (begging the question), and then giving Him attributes. “Jesus and the Bible are neither present the R1 definition of God nor indicated by 'a typical god' considering that the Christian god is a specialized one.” My opponent has failed to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus. Hence, he has dropped his argument here. Conclusion Before anything else, I would like to say that I haven’t got anything against Christians, Muslims or any other religion that believes in a God. I think that overall, religion does more good than harm. I don’t think that God cannot exist, it’s just that the Intelligent Design argument is inherently flawed. I would be willing to look into other arguments for God. My opponent constantly attempts to digress onto other arguments for God. Via Intelligent Design, an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot be argued for in a logical way. Also, please take note of Con’s plagiarised content. Conduct like that undermines the integrity of this site. Thank you for reading, and thank you, baus, for the debate ;)