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

Please click play to enjoy the theme tune to this round of argumentation. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Why is that video relevant? Only God knows. ;) I shall rebut via the following key: PS: Pro Says CR: Con Rebuts ID: Intelligent Design #1 PS: God had to limit himself to the most intelligent decision, hence in indicating that he is omniscient, we can only view that simultaneously with the fact that he has shown he is not omnipotent. CR: I think we need to clarify something here. 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. ID got its name from be opposed to the idea of an unintentional set of coincidences leading to our universe's creation. [http://www.crystalinks.com...] 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. The term 'intelligent' in 'intelligent design' is merely used to highlight that the agent responsible for this universe existing is conscious, as opposed to an unconscious, unintelligent set of coincidences incapable of thought or willpower. #2 PS: In saying that we can"t know God"s existence is God"s existence, Con effectively argues that we can"t know the universe was created by God, hence he no longer has any argument for God, via ID. CR: We can know that the universe was created by God simply by the way that everything fits together in reality itself. Knowledge does not necessitate empirical evidence to back it up, this would indicate that the knowledge would have to be factual in nature. There is such a thing as axiomatic knowledge . In mathematics, without valuing such axioms, no one can ever make sense of 1+1=2 since the first 1 and second 1 might be non-identical. Only via the axiom of 1=1 can any of the rest of it be understood. Just as the scientific explanation of our origin holds sacred the axiom that Occam's razor be held true 100% of the time, ID holds sacred the axiom that God exists. It has no proof that God exists just as science has no proof the Occam's razor works (and, in actual fact many scientific theories based on it have later been proven wrong by more complex explanations than the original because the simpler one didn't incorporate enough into it). Axioms are required to think within frameworks. The only way to understand ID is via the axiom of God existing and the only way to understand science via the axiom of Occam's Razor, which leads one to the axiom of evidence being objectively valid, rather than only subjectively valid. In the context I was using it the verb 'to know' is defined as 'to be absolutely certain or sure about something' [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. The resolution doesn't ask if God exists, it states that via ID, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god. #3 PS: The resolution pertains to being able to demonstrate such powers, so that a human may logically argue for them. CR: No it does not. God needn't demonstrate powers to have them, thus to argue for them is a capability of any human, especially via ID. The resolution discusses the capability of humans to argue logically for God via ID, it doesn't discuss the validity of the arguments themselves. #4 PS: The underlying flaws of each impending scenarios are as follows: 1. God is not demonstrating omnipotence and omniscience at the same time, hence he is failing to indicate his existence 2. He has yet to do any of these things, hence there is no supposed proof of his existence. 3. The resolution specifically calls for arguments from ID, not arguments from creating a double, or placing a "metaphorical time-bomb" on Himself. Please, read the resolution. CR: I shall rebut each number respectively: 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. 2. God doesn't need to prove his existence to exist. 3. The resolution states that no human is capable of making an argument for God via ID. Capability to argue is inherent in the very idea of ID to begin with, since it necessitate God's existence as an axiom. 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. Many other humans have made such arguments and if you want I cant source evidence of this in the next round, even to the extent of videos. If you choose to deny that I am a human being, you have the Burden of Proof to prove what else I may be to have interacted with arguments in such a way, over the Internet, that only an beings have ever been known to be capable of. To both integrate the information you post and relay it in a way that's relevant to what I previously posted and, non top of that create new arguments from these interactions surpasses the capabilities of any robot and non-human animal in existence today. #5 PS: The debate is about whether God can be logically justified, by humans, via the ID argument. CR: It is not about whether God can be logically justified but whether humans are incapable of arguing logically for a God or not. Logic is defined as 'Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument'[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. This means that formally arguing itself is inherently logical. The question is about he capability of humans to argue, not about the validity of their arguments. Logically was never defined in R" by Pro and thus is open to definition by Con. #6 PS: In God not showing efficiency in His creation, he is showing that he is not intelligent enough to be more efficient. CR: No, we can only conclude this after giving God a reason to feel the need to be more efficient and him then failing to do so. Until god has a reason to need to be more efficient he is capable of choosing not to perform at full efficiency. #7 PS: If my opponent argues that efficiency is not a goal that an omniscient being should strive for, then the creation of the universe lacks demonstration of infinite-intelligence. CR: God does not need to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it. #8 PS: The resolution does not pertain as to whether such a god exists, rather, it"s whether a person can argue logically for one. CR: It is whether a person is capable of arguing logically for one. The logic is in the fact that the matter, energy and other mystically forces presence in science, such as gravity and magnetism, do not remotely explain how the matter and energy originated, nor what made them move to begin with. In addition to this, the mystical forces do not justify the presence of consciousness within a human being and nerves to not explain the conversion of nerve-impulse to sentience. This gap in logic necessitated God, via the process of elimination. 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 (meaning if he created it all, he knows all there is to know about it and that if this is reality he consequently knows all there is to know about reality). 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. In conclusion, the argue for God, via ID is the the design required God to design it. The argument that it would be God as opposed to another is found in CR of #8.