The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
52 Points
The Contender
diety
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,370 times Debate No: 8601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (59)
Votes (19)

 

mongeese

Pro

Intelligent Design - "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Disproven - "proven to be false or wrong"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponent will carry the burden of proof, as implied by the resolution.

My opponent can do one of two things:

1) He/she will try to use a mixture of logic and science to show how Intelligent Design cannot be true.
2) He/she will show how an experiment is possible that would disprove Intelligent Design, should Intelligent Design not be true.

I await my opponent's arguments and/or experiment. Good luck.
diety

Con

:)

Thank you mongeese for creating this debate.

You might have got lucky and beat me in other debates because of vote bombers, but this time you set yourself up for failure.

:)

Before I argue let me point out a few observations

1) The resolved is a double negative. It is the same as "Intelligent Design can be proven"

2) As Pro and the Instigator, you have the burden of proof

3) I need not put forth any logic, science, or experiment disproving intelligent design until you prove it valid. Otherwise, your argument will be one based off of negative proof and therefore will be fallicious and invalid.

4) In its self, the resolved is the same as "The existence of fairies can be proven." In order to be valid it needs evidence.

5) You can't play the agnostic card here, telling me that I don't know if intelligent design is true or not, because it is not enough to affirm the resolution. You have to show how intelligent design can be proven.

6) Merely rebutting my arguments isn't enough to affirm the resolution. You have to put forth evidence as well since you bear the burden of proof.

7) You can't just uphold one aspect of your assertion and believe that you win by default. Actually in this debate, it's the other way around. All of your contentions have to stand, whereas I only need to uphold one of mine.

Now for my arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since I have nothing better to do, I guess I might as well point out the flaws of intelligent design. Also, once again take note that merely rebutting my arguments is not enough to affirm the resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

1) This argument is one of lack from imagination. I cannot imagine how certain features of the universe could have occured on their own as they are too complex. So there MUST be an intelligent designer.

2) It serves as an argument from ignorance as well. The existence of certain features of the universe are currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so there must have been an intelligent designer.

3) Not only that, but it's based off of negative proof. Since something is false, apparently your assertion must be true.

4) It does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, just that one exists.

5) If intelligent things have to be designed by an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer?

6) It aims to have science accept supernatural explainations. If supernatural is beyond the scientifically visible universe, then how can it be science? Well one things for sure, intelligent design ain't science.

7) To further number 6, the scientific method involves these steps{

1 Define the question
2 Gather information and resources (observe)
3 Form hypothesis
4 Perform experiment and collect data
5 Analyze data
6 Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7 Publish results
8 Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

}Intelligent design doesn't follow the scientific method.

8) To further explain why intelligent design isn't science, it must follow these criteria{

Consistent - look above

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor) - that seems awful complex explaining how an intelligent designer created things in the universe when it comes to explaining "how".

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively) -Intelligent design cannot predict anything

Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability) - intelligent design isn't empirically testable and to be falsifiable you'd have to admit it could be incorrect in the face of more accurate science

Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments - As I said before, you cannot perform an experiment of intelligent design. When it comes to these complex things in the universe, how are we testing or observing an intelligent designer creating those things?

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it) - You tell me.

Progressive (refines previous theories) - I think not

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty) - I think not

} And it doesn't

I await my opponent's arguments. Good luck mongeese.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

"You might have got lucky and beat me in other debates because of vote bombers, but this time you set yourself up for failure."
Wrong. Vote bombers had nothing to do with proving facts to be true.

"1) The resolved is a double negative. It is the same as 'Intelligent Design can be proven'"
Wrong. The debate says that Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. It could also be unable to be proven.
Right now, I cannot disprove that you are wearing a hat.
Does that mean that I can prove that you are wearing a hat?
No.
Therefore, you cannot apply double-negative logic to the resolution.

"2) As Pro and the Instigator, you have the burden of proof"
Wrong again.
For one thing, I specified that you would have burden of proof.
For another thing, the resolution implies that CON would have the burden of proof.

"3) I need not put forth any logic, science, or experiment disproving intelligent design until you prove it valid. Otherwise, your argument will be one based off of negative proof and therefore will be fallicious and invalid."
Wrong, yet again.
This debate requires for you to disprove Intelligent Design.
My argument is for the possibility of Intelligent Design.

"4) In its self, the resolved is the same as 'The existence of fairies can be proven.' In order to be valid it needs evidence."
Wrong. It would be, "Faries[sic] cannot be disproven." The only way to negate the resolution would be for you to disprove fairies. If fairies can neither be proven nor disproven, then they obviously can't be disproven.

"5) You can't play the agnostic card here, telling me that I don't know if intelligent design is true or not, because it is not enough to affirm the resolution. You have to show how intelligent design can be proven."
Wrong. You carry the burden of proof, because I'm saying that you can't disprove something. If you fail to disprove Intelligent Design, then you cannot disprove Intelligent Design, and the resolution is affirmed.

"6) Merely rebutting my arguments isn't enough to affirm the resolution. You have to put forth evidence as well since you bear the burden of proof."
Wrong. You bear the burden of proof. The only way to prove that something can't be disproven is to point out a failure in disproving it."

"7) You can't just uphold one aspect of your assertion and believe that you win by default. Actually in this debate, it's the other way around. All of your contentions have to stand, whereas I only need to uphold one of mine."
Wrong. I don't need any contentions. I'm here to say that you can't disprove Intelligent Design. If I show how your proofs are flawed, and you don't actually disprove Intelligent Design, then I have done my part, and would win the debate.

Wow. Seven wrong out of seven.

"Since I have nothing better to do, I guess I might as well point out the flaws of intelligent design. Also, once again take note that merely rebutting my arguments is not enough to affirm the resolution."
Yes, it is.
"My opponent will carry the burden of proof, as implied by the resolution."

"1) This argument is one of lack from imagination. I cannot imagine how certain features of the universe could have occured[sic] on their own as they are too complex. So there MUST be an intelligent designer."
However, this does nothing to disprove Intelligent Design. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

"2) It serves as an argument from ignorance as well. The existence of certain features of the universe are currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so there must have been an intelligent designer."
However, this does you no good when it comes to the resolution. It receives the label of "IRRELEVANT," as well.

"3) Not only that, but it's based off of negative proof. Since something is false, apparently your assertion must be true."
I never said that anything is false.
However, you still aren't helping your case.

"4) It does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, just that one exists."
Can you disprove that that one thing exists?

"5) If intelligent things have to be designed by an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer?"
I don't know.

"6) It aims to have science accept supernatural explainations[sic]. If supernatural is beyond the scientifically visible universe, then how can it be science? Well one things[sic] for sure, intelligent design ain't science."
Does something have to be science to be true?
If it's pseudoscience, then you should be able to disprove it, should it be disprovable.

"7) To further number 6, the scientific method involves these steps... Intelligent design doesn't follow the scientific method."
So? Something doesn't have to follow the scientific method to be true.
Is there a scientific method for disproving things? That's what you're going to need here.

"8) To further explain why intelligent design isn't science, it must follow these criteria... And it doesn't"
Unless you can point out why failing to meet criteria for being science makes something disproven, this doesn't mean anything. Furthermore, you cover it with, "You tell me," and "I think not." Well, since the burden of proof is on you, please explain. If we don't know "how" something happened, does that mean that it could not have happened? Does something have to be useful to be true?

Ultimately, diety, you have to understand that you do have the burden of proof. So far, you haven't taken either of the two steps. Until you do, this debate really hasn't started yet.

Good luck with your logic/experiment, should you ever get to it.
diety

Con

:)

My opponent has tried his best to ignore the fact that he has the burden of proof because he knows that because of that he will lose this debate.

"1) The resolved is a double negative. It is the same as 'Intelligent Design can be proven'"
Wrong. The debate says that Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. It could also be unable to be proven.
Right now, I cannot disprove that you are wearing a hat.
Does that mean that I can prove that you are wearing a hat?
No.
Therefore, you cannot apply double-negative logic to the resolution."

No! I see you trying to pull a fast one there. 'Cannot disprove' is not the same as 'unable to prove'. It's actually 'unable to disprove.'

:)

First of all, as Pro and the Instigator, you're the one in the first place that made the claim that intelligent design cannot be disproven in the first place. Just because you say you don't have the burden of proof doesn't mean anything. The resolution does not imply that I have the burden of proof.

""2) As Pro and the Instigator, you have the burden of proof"
Wrong again.
For one thing, I specified that you would have burden of proof.
For another thing, the resolution implies that CON would have the burden of proof."

Sorry pal. It doesn't matter if you say I have the burden of proof, what matters is the resolved and the resolved only. The resolved doesn't imply I have the burden of proof because I never said that intelligent design cannot be disproven. You did it.

And right now your being a hypocrite.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Fellow voters, do a CTRL F and type in 'burden.' Also, you should read the first of the comments. This dude thinks he can get away with making stuff up (as far as burden of proof rules go).

:)

""3) I need not put forth any logic, science, or experiment disproving intelligent design until you prove it valid. Otherwise, your argument will be one based off of negative proof and therefore will be fallicious and invalid."
Wrong, yet again.
This debate requires for you to disprove Intelligent Design.
My argument is for the possibility of Intelligent Design."

Other way around pal. As you clearly bear the burden of proof, you must show how intelligent design cannot be disproven. I can simply offer the possibility of it being able to be disproven. Hey, you made the claim.

I don't know who you think you are trying to play around with burden of proof rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Not only you made the claim but you have yet to present evidence.

"4) In its self, the resolved is the same as 'The existence of fairies can be proven.' In order to be valid it needs evidence."
Wrong. It would be, "Faries[sic] cannot be disproven." The only way to negate the resolution would be for you to disprove fairies. If fairies can neither be proven nor disproven, then they obviously can't be disproven."

Ok, I'll let it be fairies cannot be disproven. You would still have to present evidence as to HOW. The burden of proof is on you

Ok to save space I'll shorten my copies of your arguments.

"5) You can't play the agnostic card here...... Wrong. You carry the burden of proof, because I'm saying that you can't disprove something."

Still playing with burden of proof rules. You made the claim buddy. You said that intelligent design couldn't be disproven. You don't show how.

"6) Merely rebutting my arguments isn't enough to affirm the resolution. You have to put forth evidence as well since you bear the burden of proof."
Wrong. You bear the burden of proof. The only way to prove that something can't be disproven is to point out a failure in disproving it."

:( This is getting annoying as heck. Who made the claim?

"7) You can't just uphold one aspect of your assertion and believe that you win by default

Wrong. I don't need any contentions. I'm here to say that you can't disprove Intelligent Design. If I show how your proofs are flawed, and you don't actually disprove Intelligent Design, then I have done my part, and would win the debate."

Nope. You need to uphold all your points because according to you "Intelligent Design cannot be disproven."

And worse, I bet my opponent is going to keep on with this nonsense, instead of actually offering proof for intelligent design. As far as all of my rebuttals, he will never say how they're wrong, he will just keep saying "no your wrong."

Let me ask you this: Can intelligent design be proven?

I like triple dog dare my opponent to answer that question.

Anyway, lets get to the real debating (hopefully no more throwing rocks at me without actually making a case)

Arguments:

"1) Lack of imagination
2) Argument of ignorance
3) Negative proof
However, this does nothing to disprove Intelligent Design. Therefore, it is irrelevant."

Intelligent design is a fallicious argument in the first place. And yes it is based off of negative proof because instead of providing evidence, it says it's hypothesis is correct because another (natural selection) is incorrect. Intelligent design has no proof for it whatsoever, which is why can't be considered proven

""5) If intelligent things have to be designed by an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer?"
I don't know."

You don't know? Then how do you know that the complex features in the universe where created by an intelligent designer? See, the assertion is inconsistent because it states itself that complex things must be created by a more complex designer. But has not been tested or been proven to be always true. See, I disproved it right there, saying that for it to be true there must be an infinite regress of designers. If our designer didn't need a designer, then why do we need one?

"6) It aims to have science accept supernatural explainations[sic]. "

If you read my source then yes, that's what intelligent design does. Also, something does need to have scientific evidence to be true. Science, fact, and truth are somewhat synonymous.

Also, intelligent design claims to be science, so it must follow the scientific method. But it doesn't.

"Ultimately, diety, you have to understand that you do have the burden of proof. So far, you haven't taken either of the two steps. Until you do, this debate really hasn't started yet.

Good luck with your logic/experiment, should you ever get to it."

No. You keep it up with that mindset that I have the burden of proof and I'll be the clear winner of this debate.

And worse, you've shown no proof for your case whatsoever, you just attack mine and assume you're correct by default. That sound's like negative proof to me.

Bottom line, you made the claim that intelligent design cannot be disproven. As pro and the instigator you have the burden of proof. You have yet to meet it. To meet it you need evidence. I see none. I've shown several reasons why intelligent design is disproven, most notably that it claims to be a science and it's not.

Therefore I urge a CON ballot.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

"No! I see you trying to pull a fast one there. 'Cannot disprove' is not the same as 'unable to prove'. It's actually 'unable to disprove.'"
However, something can be unable to prove and unable to disprove at the same time.

"First of all, as Pro and the Instigator, you're the one in the first place that made the claim that intelligent design cannot be disproven in the first place. Just because you say you don't have the burden of proof doesn't mean anything. The resolution does not imply that I have the burden of proof."
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda: "The instigator should decide who has to give burden of proof."
wjmelements: "And if the contender accepts a debate that declares that he/she has BOP, then he should accept that BOP."

"Sorry pal. It doesn't matter if you say I have the burden of proof, what matters is the resolved and the resolved only. The resolved doesn't imply I have the burden of proof because I never said that intelligent design cannot be disproven. You did it."
You still have the burden of proof, as it was a rule outlined for the debate.

"And right now your[sic] being a hypocrite..."
Did you ever say that the Contender would have the BOP?

"Other way around pal. As you clearly bear the burden of proof, you must show how intelligent design cannot be disproven. I can simply offer the possibility of it being able to be disproven. Hey, you made the claim."
Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.
There is no logic that can absolutely prove that Intelligent Design could not have happened.
An experiment would also fail, because there is a chance that the Intelligent Designer does not wish to make himself known, or the Intelligent Designer died a while after creation.

"I don't know who you think you are trying to play around with burden of proof rules."
I'm the Instigator. Who gave you burden of proof. Which you then accepted.

"Not only you made the claim but you have yet to present evidence."
However, I gave you the burden of proof.

"Ok, I'll let it be fairies cannot be disproven. You would still have to present evidence as to HOW. The burden of proof is on you"
Fairies could easily be invisible and metaphysical, and unable to be detected.
Therefore, fairies could exist, and we'd NEVER KNOW. o.O

"Still playing with burden of proof rules. You made the claim buddy. You said that intelligent design couldn't be disproven. You don't show how."
See somewhat above.

"Let me ask you this: Can intelligent design be proven?"
Yes. If we were to set up a controlled experiment in which we asked for the Intelligent Designer to write something on a chalkboard, and a message about Intelligent Design did appear, then Intelligent Design would be proven.
However, a lack of reaction would still leave it as a mystery, as the Intelligent Designer might be dead, or might want to mess with our minds, or might not care about little controlled experiments.

"Intelligent design has no proof for it whatsoever, which is why can't be considered proven"
It also apparently has no proof against it, which is why it can't be considered disproven.

"See, I disproved it right there, saying that for it to be true there must be an infinite regress of designers. If our designer didn't need a designer, then why do we need one?"
We are physical.
An Intelligent Designer would have to be metaphysical, at least in our universe.
A metaphysical thing could appear through metaphysical events.
Technically, the chain could end anywhere.
There might be five levels of Intelligent Design.
There might be twenty.
There might be forty-two.
Humans could continue this chain. If we were to invent some controlled science project in which we had created nano-microscopic organisms in a dimension lesser to our own, in which they had their own universe identical to our own, then we'd be Intelligent Designers.
This could just as easily be us.

"Also, intelligent design claims to be science, so it must follow the scientific method. But it doesn't."
Just because something cannot be proved through science doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Let's say I take a bow, and fire an arrow into a target one hundred feet away, a bulls-eye.
I then run up to you and say that I shot a bulls-eye.
You ask me to prove it, but I can only show the arrow, which you conclude may have been placed there from two feet away, rather than one hundred feet, like I claim.
It hasn't been proven.
However, it was true.

"No. You keep it up with that mindset that I have the burden of proof and I'll be the clear winner of this debate."
But you do.
See above arguments, as well. You're using some logic, actually, with the infinite regression and all. You're actually cooperating with the rules.

"And worse, you've shown no proof for your case whatsoever, you just attack mine and assume you're correct by default. That sound's[sic] like negative proof to me."
That's what the debate was supposed to be.

Anyways, I now have some arguments:

"Fairies could easily be invisible and metaphysical, and unable to be detected by anything, leaving no proof of their existence behind that can't be explained through some other process.
Therefore, fairies could exist, and we'd NEVER KNOW. o.O"

"We are physical.
An Intelligent Designer would have to be metaphysical, at least in our universe.
A metaphysical thing could appear through metaphysical events.
Technically, the chain could end anywhere.
There might be five levels of Intelligent Design.
There might be twenty.
There might be forty-two.
Humans could continue this chain. If we were to invent some controlled science project in which we had created nano-microscopic organisms in a dimension lesser to our own, in which they had their own universe identical to our own, then we'd be Intelligent Designers.
This could just as easily be us."

"Just because something cannot be proved through science doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Let's say I take a bow, and fire an arrow into a target one hundred feet away, a bulls-eye.
I then run up to you and say that I shot a bulls-eye.
You ask me to prove it, but I can only show the arrow, which you conclude may have been placed there from two feet away, rather than one hundred feet, like I claim.
It hasn't been proven.
However, it was true."

Let's see you handle that.
diety

Con

^o^

I won't be so harsh on this. I'll let voters decide who should be the victor of this debate.

Now, I've provided multiple sources as to why the claimant must have the burden of proof. If you say that there are fairies, it is not my responsibility to prove you wrong, but yours to prove their existence. Just because you tell me that I have the burden of proof doesn't mean I have the burden of proof. I could see if the resolved actually implied me having the burden of proof, but it doesn't.

You claimed that intelligent design cannot be disproven. Sort of like saying intelligent design is undeniable, or impossible to be disproven. Ok, now provide evidence as to why that is so.

As for your whole rebuttal, wjelements and i-am-a-panda aren't the people who decide how a debate goes. Did they create the rules for debate? Are they always correct? Instead of using mere opinions for my debate, I used reliable sources and evidence (regarding the whole burden of proof quarrel.)

For those who didn't catch them, here are my sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

See, the burden of proof is on the claimant

http://www.debate.org...

For the debate source, please do a CTRL F and type 'burden'.

'As wjmelements said, you carry the burden of proof for this debate as the instigator, and must prove that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god cannot exist.' - mongeese

As far as you being a hypocrite, I provided sources buddy.

:)

Like I said, the resolution didn't imply that the burden of proof rests on me, but it rests on you. You said that intelligent design 'cannot be disproven' which is like saying it is undeniable, concrete, or impossible to disprove. You made the claim.

""Let me ask you this: Can intelligent design be proven?"
Yes. If we were to set up a controlled experiment in which we asked for the Intelligent Designer to write something on a chalkboard, and a message about Intelligent Design did appear, then Intelligent Design would be proven.
However, a lack of reaction would still leave it as a mystery, as the Intelligent Designer might be dead, or might want to mess with our minds, or might not care about little controlled experiments."

That is not a valid experiment. It is not consistent because it isn't applicable. It's not parsimonious because it leaves us to jump to all of these conclusions. It's not empirically testable because we have no way of contacting an METAPHYSICAL intelligent designer or even knowing one exists. Also, it isn't falsifiable because there is no proof for it in the first place, making it invalid. It obviously isn't correctable. It doesn't support any previous theories. It isn't open to checking because it can't be checked.

"Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.
There is no logic that can absolutely prove that Intelligent Design could not have happened.
An experiment would also fail, because there is a chance that the Intelligent Designer does not wish to make himself known, or the Intelligent Designer died a while after creation."

It don't work like that pal. You're the one who said that intelligent design couldn't be disproven. You didn't show any evidence as to why it is undeniable.

Like I said before, the burden of proof is on the claimant. His whole argument is based off of negative proof which is fallicious and incorrect.

NOW FOR MY ARGUMENTS
---------------------------------

Now, here's the big part. Intelligent design claims to be a science. Meaning that it must follow the scientific method to be considered legit. It doesn't, and is therefore illegit and disproven.

Also, I showed how intelligent design wasn't factual because under that logic, if an intelligent being needs a more intelligent designer, then there would have to be an infinite regress of designers. Mongeese rebuts by saying our designer would HAVE to be metaphysical? Why? Any evidence to support that? And then he says there COULD be several levels of intelligent design. What I have to say for this is that there COULD be zero.

Even so, by talking about the metaphysical you admit that intelligent design is an attempt to get science to accept the supernatural.

I have just proven that intelligent design isn't concrete because it isn't even factual as it stands. It is not verifiable or testable. And it is not even known if metaphysical things exist or not.

"Just because something cannot be proved through science doesn't mean that it isn't true."

It's untrue if I claim it to be science.

As far as your whole bulls-eye analogy, I doubt that an arrow being placed on a target would have the same impact as one fired one-hundred feet away.

Now, whenever I say something you keep saying '[sic]', but you don't explain why I'm incorrect. I think that 'sic' is another way of saying that I am correct but you wish to ignore me as you don't know how to rebut my assertion with evidence. Please stop using that word, because other than in this paragraph, I don't use it.

:)

Now, here's the bottom line. As far as your whole fairy analogy goes, you're right. They could be metaphysical, invisible, or undetectable. But because of that they can't be considered factual and are currently considered non-existent.

As far as this debate goes, the burden of proof lies on you and you failed to meet it. I've shown multiple reasons as to why intelligent design isn't impossible to disprove and you keep ignoring me and coming up with all these excuses why my arguments are incorrect. As I've said before, you're whole argument is based off of negative proof and is invalid.

Please vote CON

Thank you

:)
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

"You claimed that intelligent design cannot be disproven. Sort of like saying intelligent design is undeniable, or impossible to be disproven. Ok, now provide evidence as to why that is so."
Okay.
Any effect that an Intelligent Designer used in the creation of the universe could have been done in a subtle way, in a natural way.
The Intelligent Designer could have used natural forces to create the universe, then to create Earth, then to add life.
The Intelligent Designer could have then forced mutations to take evolution along, getting us to where we are now.
The Intelligent Designer really could have done anything with the universe. We don't know. We can't prove it right now. We can't disprove it, either.

"As far as you being a hypocrite, I provided sources buddy."
However, one of the rules of the debate was that you would have burden of proof. You accepted the debate. Therefore, you accept the rules.

"That is not a valid experiment..."
So?
Let's say there was a science conference in San Diego, and suddenly, a person materialized on top of the conference table. He claims to be the Intelligent Designer who created the universe. He demonstrates his metaphysical powers by moving around objects, and then he kills the man in front of him, doesn't get killed by the security guard's gun, and brings the man back to life.
He then shows the scientists how he is metaphysical, and the Intelligent Designer. They ask him some questions, and he answers, displaying omniscience.
The scientists document everything, and put together a report on how Intelligent Design is true.
Sure, it's far-fetched, but if it happened, it would prove Intelligent Design, no?

"It don't[sic] work like that pal..."
The Intelligent Designer could have created the universe in a seemingly natural way, then created the Earth in a seemingly natural way, then created life in a seemingly natural way, then died. It would look completely natural, but there could be an Intelligent Designer behind it. Because an Intelligent Designer wouldn't have to leave behind a signature or anything, we wouldn't be able to prove or disprove anything, ever.

"It doesn't, and is therefore illegit[sic] and disproven."
Just because science can't prove something, doesn't mean it can't be true.
Maybe Intelligent Design isn't universally accepted science. That doesn't disprove it.
See the arrow example.

"What I have to say for this is that there COULD be zero."
That doesn't mean anything.
A lack of evidence is in my favor.
There could be zero, but there could be twenty. Because you can't prove that it is zero, and it is impossible to prove that it is zero, Intelligent Design is not disproven by the infinite regression theory.

"Even so, by talking about the metaphysical you admit that intelligent design is an attempt to get science to accept the supernatural."
Science doesn't have to accept it. It can be true without science.

"It's untrue if I claim it to be science."
So, if some people claim it is science, then proving that it isn't science makes it untrue?
I claim it not to be science. I claim that it may be true without being scientifically provable. Things can be true without being scientifically provable. However, if it is disproven by science, then it is untrue. However, Intelligent Design isn't able to be disproved.

"As far as your whole bulls-eye analogy, I doubt that an arrow being placed on a target would have the same impact as one fired one-hundred feet away."
If you fire it from two feet away with a different amount of tension than you would from one-hundred feet away, then it could look the same. The tension and the distance combined affect the impact.

"I think that 'sic' is another way of saying that I am correct but you wish to ignore me as you don't know how to rebut my assertion with evidence."
[sic] is used when quoting something that is misspelled or grammatically incorrect, so that I acknowledge that it isn't correct, but it was the speaker that made the mistake, rather than the person who is quoting.

":)"
(:

"But because of that they can't be considered factual and are currently considered non-existent."
Wrong. Because they can't be considered factual, they are currently not considered existent. Just because you consider that something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

"As far as this debate goes, the burden of proof lies on you and you failed to meet it."
See above logic about how Intelligent Design could exist without being detectable.

"I've shown multiple reasons as to why intelligent design isn't impossible to disprove and you keep ignoring me and coming up with all these excuses why my arguments are incorrect."
All of your arguments are about how Intelligent Design is impossible to prove with science. You do nothing to disprove it except say that things must be science to be true, which is untrue.

"As I've said before, you're whole argument is based off of negative proof and is invalid."
My argument currently rests on the fact that Intelligent Design is undetectable.

"Please vote CON"
Please vote PRO.

"Thank you"
Thank you, as well.

":)"
(:
diety

Con

Ok, let me try this again. I'll make this short.

You agreed that the resolution is the same as stating intelligent design is undeniable.

I don't see an intelligent designer. There is no math, evidence, or reason why I should think that an intelligent designer exists. I have just denied intelligent design.

Then, you come up with all of these 'could have' arguments. There's no evidence or proof supporting any of this, so it cannot be considered fact.

Now, as far as me showing you how intelligent design isn't valid science, that right there ought to successfully disprove it. It claims that as a science intelligent design is valid, and I showed how it didn't even follow the scientific method and it lies invalid. It doesn't matter if you don't consider it science: it by definition is supposed to be considered a science. Read my sources.

You're whole hypothetical metaphyisical example would be perfectly valid truth if it actually would have happened. But unfortunately it has not. Also, some dude popping up like that or even someone creating the universe in itself violates the law of conservation of matter. Energy can't be created or destroyed.

Also, once again intelligent design is disproven because under that logic there has to be an intelligent designer for every intelligent thing, including the designer, creating an infinite regress of designers. Atleast one designer wasn't designed, making it invalid. You can't play the 'Intelligent design could have stopped at some level card,' because that would also make the theory invalid because every intelligent thing wouldn't need a more intelligent designer.

That ought to be enough.

The resolution is negated

Thank you

:)

P.S.: Stop copying me. Only 5 year olds are supposed to do that. You ought to lose conduct points for that
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

"You agreed that the resolution is the same as stating intelligent design is undeniable."
What? No. The resolution is that it can't be disproven.

"I don't see an intelligent designer. There is no math, evidence, or reason why I should think that an intelligent designer exists. I have just denied intelligent design."
Okay, then. You deny it. People deny lots of things. That doesn't disprove it.

"Then, you come up with all of these 'could have' arguments. There's no evidence or proof supporting any of this, so it cannot be considered fact."
It can't be considered false, either.

"Now, as far as me showing you how intelligent design isn't valid science, that right there ought to successfully disprove it...."
You never say why things have to be science.
Things can be true without science.
If we humans rewrote science, it would be science.
You dropped my bulls-eye example.
You conceded that things can be true without science.

"You're whole hypothetical metaphyisical[sic] example would be perfectly valid truth..."
You asked if it could be proven.
That's how it could be proven.
An Intelligent Designer would have powers over his own laws.
Thing is, this can't be applied in reverse to disprove Intelligent Design, because if he never shows up, he might just not feel like showing up.

"Also, once again intelligent design is disproven because under that logic there has to be an intelligent designer for every intelligent thing, including the designer, creating an infinite regress of designers..."
I already addressed. One Intelligent Designer could be created randomly through natural forces. The rest would be an eventual progression, not recession. We might someday create another mini-universe to observe under our own variables, making us Intelligent Designers.

"You can't play the 'Intelligent design could have stopped at some level card,' because that would also make the theory invalid because every intelligent thing wouldn't need a more intelligent designer."
The theory is that our universe was created through Intelligent Design. It doesn't matter how the Intelligent Designer showed up, really. My definition disagrees with you.

My opponent has dropped the bulls-eye example. He concedes that something could be true without being proven scientifically, which is his entire argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

All of the arguments against Intelligent Design only attack the proofs for Intelligent Design. They don't do anything against Intelligent Design itself.

My opponent has conceded that an Intelligent Designer could create the universe without making it look any different than natural forces.

My opponent has conceded that things don't have to leave evidence to be true.

My opponent has conceded that things don't have to be confirmed by science to be true.

My opponent has conceded that there is no experiment that could disprove Intelligent Design.

There are no observations, therefore, that could ever be made to show how Intelligent Design could not have happened.

Therefore, Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

The resolution is affirmed.

Vote PRO.

I wonder if sources that are irrelevant to the debate count as sources. If they don't, my opponent has no sources.
diety

Con

Ok, I'll wrap it up.

This is why I am the victor of this debate. Saying intelligent design 'cannot be disproven' is like saying it is concrete, undeniable, or impossible to disprove. At first you agreed with me and later on you suddenly switched your stance. You showed no evidence whatsoever why intelligent design was so concrete in the first place.

Even so, you keep saying intelligent doesn't have to be science to be correct. If you didn't want it to be science you should have used a term like 'creationism' instead.

Intelligent design doesn't stop with your claims; your argument must be affiliated with all of the claims that define intelligent design. One of them is that intelligent design is science, another is that complex things need a more complex designer. I showed you with evidence how intelligent design is not a science and how ALL complex things don't need a more complex designer. You even admitted it yourself that intelligent design would have to stop at some level, which right there disproves it. Also, if intelligent design is claiming that it is a scientific theory and I show you how it is not science, it also disproves it.

If it is not science there is no way you can disprove it by experiment. Your right, there are no observations and there is no left evidence. You disprove it by pointing out the logical paradoxes which I did. It's pretty sad that you want people to fight a negative proof.

Intelligent design has been disproven and I just did it.

The resolution is negated.

Thank you

:)

P.S.: All of my sources were relevant to this debate. I don't know how the wiki for intelligent design, science, and negative proof are irrelevant. And besides you do that all the time. But no matter, voters will decide.
Debate Round No. 5
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
@ diety: I don't support intelligent design.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Practically defaulted to Mongeese. He isn't arguing a necessary validity of ID, but rather that it cannot be scientifically debunked.

Think Russell's teapot. There is no way to disprove the assertion that there is a tiny teapot revolving around the sun, so long as we mention that the teapot is so small that no telescope is powerful enough to locate it. Mongeese is arguing that the teapot can't be proven false, not that it is necessarily true.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
In the last round, all you did was say that it wasn't science, and that it couldn't be disproven, and that it was therefore disproven.

???
Posted by diety 7 years ago
diety
Perhaps you guys should read the final round. That's probably the only round that clear of burden of proof mess.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
C: Pro. Con insinuated Pro was a 5-year-old, and contested the rules Pro set down.
S/G: Pro. Con had a few noticeable errors.
CA: Pro. Con never showed how ID can be disproven. Pro showed that Con had the burden of proof, and then stated why ID can't be disproven, even though he didn't need to.
S: Tied. Sources were equally reliable.
Posted by diety 7 years ago
diety
Like I said, mongeese's debate would've been legit had he used the term 'creationism' or something rather then intelligent design. Using the word 'intelligent design' is like saying 'the science of how complex things come into existence.' If I show how it's invalid with logic or even show how it isn't science, that ought to be enough to disprove it.
Posted by bluefreedom23 7 years ago
bluefreedom23
Why such confusion over mongeese's resolution? The statement is obviously true. Even Richard Dawkins admits he can't disprove the existence of the god, or fairies, or leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster. If you can't disprove god exists then certainly you can't disprove a process that he allegedly started.

The real question is why bother posing this question? Was it to somehow defend and lend credibility to the theory of Intelligent Design? If so, it failed miserably.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
THE BURDEN OF PROOF BELONGS TO BOTH SIDES!!! (sorry, I had to get that out of my system)
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
The amount of BoP talk during this debate was nonsensical. Given that audience members generally carry with them their own criteria concerning who carries the burden, discussing it within the debate serves only as a distraction.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I can say it's true. Just like the man who fired a bulls-eye can say that he did.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by vervatos 7 years ago
vervatos
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70