Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

I would like to urge him however to remain disciplined in structuring his work - as the sentences are getting very spaced out and unstructured and the debate is becoming increasingly hard to follow. I do this note out of spite but of sincerity in order to maintain the order of the debate. So please, for next time, if you can. For this round of the debate, I will introduce no new additional arguments. It seems as if the debate is getting stuck around the arguments initially mentioned and despite my continuous rebuttals, proposition remains firm to his original arsenal. I will, for this round, examine what the proposition has said and respond appropriately. ============================== 1) Intelligent Design is Unintelligent Rebuttal 2 - ============================== "I suspect Con only uses this line of argument when their is an intelligence cause claimed to be the cause of the universe. ". I hate to use the term, but this is a strawman. The purpose of the argument is to respond to your definition, "Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity". Not only is the definition involve circular logic (intelligent design refers to intelligent causes) -> yet we come no closer to understanding the intelligent design besides the virtue of its intelligence, but it ultimately gets us nowhere in our understanding of the universe. The counter-example you brought up was gravity, and how, by my logic, it is equally counter intuitive to attribute it as the first cause. I however, would contest that assertion. Gravity is something that we are readily aware of in our experience. To understand its relationship in regards to the cause of the universe is not only empirically verifiable but also reasonably verifiable. If anything, to say that gravity is the potential cause of the universe is far more rational than the mere speculation that an intelligent designer was a potential cause. ============================== 2) Purpose/intent always involves a will. - ============================== "I'm going to be real nice here, and give con the opportunity to reword that statement, and here is why. " Purpose and Intent are dependent on a mind for its existence. At this point, I must ask, where do we draw the line on intelligence. For, plants, geology, animals, cells and even atoms fundamentally act for a particular purpose. At the most fundamental level, subatomic particles act for the purpose of adaptation to particular physical conditions. This has no reasonable implications for the existence of a "mind". Please bear in mind also you've not formally defined what a mind is and how it is distinct from any other thing in the universe. I would like the viewer to also note - my opponent appeals to arbitrary dictionary definitions rather than actual argumentation. I prefer to do the latter in regards to debate and I hope it is acknowledged. ============================== 3) The Necessary Existence of the Universe - ============================== "I agree. But what if you were to argue that before you could listen to one song, but before that song is another, and before that another. .. .. .. .. .. unto infinity, with their being no first song. I would point out the impossibility of this infinite regress. " This is not an analogy. You just rephrased the CD metaphor into an infinite regression and said, "here's an infinite regression". You say FINITE + FINITE = FINITE, but you've never made the case for why the universe is not contingent. Prescriptively speaking, the universe is not the sum of its parts. There are inherent prescriptive properties to the universe that make it necessary to exist in order for contingent things to exist. For example TIME & SPACE. In order for any contingent relationship to exist, a relationship of change must precede it, this being time. Furthermore, in order for physical things to exist spatially, there must be space that exists before it. However, "space" isn't a spatial thing in itself, space is just a necessary existent that allows for us to recognize physical objects (for where else will they exist? ). It is irrational to say that an intelligent designer existed (where? ) and then brought into existence (how? ) space & time which allow for things to come into existence. That is why I say it is more rational to say that the universe is necessary and is not caused by intelligent design. ============================== 4) Further Begging the Question ============================== "I would ask is this keyboard the product of design ? " Etc. My opponent believes I am improperly noting that he is begging the question. Yet he does this twice in the following portion of his writing. "is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. " He is intentionally implying that because our keyboards seem so complex they must be intelligently caused. He doesn't pick something primitive like a Carbon atom (which makes up the human body) - no, for this doesn't persuade as well as a complex watch, keyboard or computer monitor. Please refer to Point 2 in regards to intelligence. My opponent hasn't really distinguished intelligence from any other form of design. I have reasoned that intelligent design is really a falsity. In the universe, with everything being governed by the law of cause & effect, there is always a deduction from the seemingly "intelligently designed" to the primitive simplicity that caused it (for example, organisms evolving). ============================== Odd note on source citation ============================== 5) Note, I only scanned your link, there is an 8000 maximum word limit, you can't go around that by posting arguments from links thanks. - I posted the link as a verifiable source and I posted my argument in full that round. ============================== Intent syllogism is gone - first syllogism resurfaces ============================== 6) My opponent has dropped his syllogism on "intent" finally. He has made no notice of its failure in this debate. I am glad that we have moved on. However, he continues to stick to his initial premise, which I will briefly re-examine. 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. 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. When a plant grows or the geology of an environment changes, is this the product of some external intelligent cause or is it simply material things adapting to their environment as well as developing according to an evolved genetic code, etc. 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts. I've mentioned in Round 1 why working parts don't necessarily imply a uniform, prescriptive design. Nature adapts to conditions, it is not statically designed in its form to act in a certain behavior. 3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. 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. I hope you won't tell me that watches/keyboards break too, because then this grandeur of intelligent design will crumble. ========= IN SUMMARY ========= For this round, I've spent all of my characters examining what the opposite has said. I've done a complete rebuttal of all of the arguments of the proposition and believe that my case firmly stands. For this, I urge you to Vote Opp.