The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,253 times Debate No: 13947
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

NOTE if you have a problem with definitions or rules or anything, please post in the comment section first, to see whether we can both agree to amended rules or descriptions before starting.

I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief.

My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief.

(PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side)

In order to win I have to argue that Intelligent Design is a rational belief (I don't have convince anyone that its true, just that its a rational belief)

In order for my opponent to win they must argue that Intelligent Design is an irrational belief (they don't have to convince anyone that its false, just that its an irrational belief)

Definitions

Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life

Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity

Rational - agreeable to reason

Reason - the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

Notes - I'd like to keep the main arguments to things on earth and specifically humans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening statements..............

If some one came across a car for the first time, and started observation and tests on it, they would probably figure out some of its "parts" such as wheels for moving, steering wheel for direction, engine for transfer energy into motion, etc and come to the conclusion these parts working, not just in themselves but complimentary to the other parts of the car, this person would be in their rational rights to conclude the car exists by design, and because it has design was built for a purpose and not an accident

If something came across a human for the first time, and started observation and tests on it, they would probably figure out some of its "parts" such as legs for walking, mouth for chewing, heart for pumping blood etc and come to the conclusion these parts working, not just in themselves but complimentary to the other parts of the human, this something would be in their rational rights to conclude the human exists by design, and because it has design was built for a purpose and not an accident

1st argument.............

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.
2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design.
5) Therefore humans have an intelligent cause.

2nd argument............

Before I give my 2nd argument I want to clarify what I mean by using certain terms

By design - I mean has an intelligent cause (example like a car, the intelligent/intent cause being humans)
By accident - I mean a cause with no intelligent intent ( atheist view that the universe began to exist without an intelligent cause)
By necessity - I mean a cause which exists because its non existence is impossible (eg God or something eternal or something self existent or prime mover)

1) Something exists either by design or accident or necessity
2) Humans do not exist by accident or necessity
3) Therefore humans exist by design

I look forward to Cons response.
Atheism

Con

I look forward to an engaging debate.

For starters, I will start off my part of the round by challenging my opponent's arguments.

Let's get to his first syllogism.

ARGUMENT 1
---------------

Premise 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.
Premise 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts.
Statement: Humans have multiple working parts not working just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
Inference: Therefore, we can deduce that humans have design.
Conclusion: Ergo, humans have an intelligent cause.

Now, this all seems fine and dandy at face value, but my opponent creates a central flaw in his syllogism.

I don't know what to even call it at this point, as it seems to be a mixture of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, a false dichotomy, and some type of circular reasoning.

As for debunking it, we can start by critiquing the second premise, the statement and inference.
The second premise has a huge 'can' in there. It infers that if something may have the possibility of being designed, it is designed. It does not account for evolution, and is thus a false dichotomy.
The statement is true, I'd think, but the inference does not sync up. It assumes that for ANY organism to have multiple working parts blah blah blah, it must have been designed. It also commits a false dichotomy, in which it excludes chance in it's entirety. Until my opponent can rectify this, the syllogism must be marked as valid.

ARGUMENT 2
---------------

My opponent's syllogism follows as such:

Premise 1) Something exists either by design or accident or necessity.
Statement: Humans do not exist by accident or necessity.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans exist by design.

Obviously, there are some main problems, which lie in the Premise & Statement.

The Premise totally excludes evolution. It does not combine chance & the natural laws of the universe, so we can assume Premise 1 to be a false dichotomy.
The Statement gives an assertion without proof. It does not show how humans don't exist by accident nor necessity. It is simply a huge postulate he expects us to take as a given. It is most certainly not. Since his burden shows that he must prove ID rational, he is expected to fulfill that burden, and explain every inch of his assertions and claims. He needs to do so, or he will not have met his burden.

Well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, it seems that I must now fulfill my burden. However, I've already done that. His definition of rational states that the subject, topic, etc. in question must agree & be supported by logic. However, if his arguments fall short, then it can be assumed that whatever he is arguing for/against is irrational, and is NOT supported by logic.

As I've shown why his arguments are not rational, then we must assume they are IRRATIONAL, by my opponent's very own definitions, and I have fulfilled my criteria asked of me by the burden.

As of now, I have defeated my opponent's arguments, and met my burden of proof.

Were this debate to end suddenly, I would urge you to vote Con.

I now pass the debate to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "The second premise has a huge 'can' in there. It infers that if something may have the possibility of being designed, it is designed. It does not account for evolution, and is thus a false dichotomy"

Deduce
1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning.
2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively: deduced from the laws of physics that the new airplane would fly.
3. To trace the origin or derivation of.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

The 2nd premise states how design can be deduced. It says nothing about possibilities vs actualities. But with that in mind I would like to change the conclusion of the first argument. The conclusion should read Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause.

Con says " It assumes that for ANY organism to have multiple working parts blah blah blah, it must have been designed"

Are you claiming that organisms that have multiple working parts working complimentary can be the result of something other than design ?, If your not claiming that, then what is your objection ?

Regarding argument 2, Con says "The Premise totally excludes evolution. It does not combine chance & the natural laws of the universe, so we can assume Premise 1 to be a false dichotomy."

Could you explain and show how Premise 1 which states Something exists either by design or accident or necessity excludes evolution ? Why doesn't the accident/non design of universal laws and the accident/non design of evolutionary process fit into the category of accident ?

Con says "The Statement gives an assertion without proof. It does not show how humans don't exist by accident nor necessity"

In regards to necessity, humans don't exist cause they necessarily have to, humans could of not existed, and humans can cease to exist going into the future.

As far as the category of accident, based on the deduction of complimentary working parts to justify the belief that humans are the result of design, and in the absence of any other arguments proving the contrary or at least being more plausible this belief is justified.

Con says "he is expected to fulfill that burden, and explain every inch of his assertions and claims. He needs to do so, or he will not have met his burden"

Thanks for reminding me about my burden, allow me to return the favor.....................

"I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief.

My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief.

(PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side)"

Over to Con
Atheism

Con

I thank my opponent for his speedy response.
Onto his rebuttals.

'The 2nd premise states how design can be deduced. It says nothing about possibilities vs actualities. But with that in mind I would like to change the conclusion of the first argument. The conclusion should read Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause.'
The point I was making with mar argument was that the premise hinted that the only way multiple parts could come to work together was design. It didn't explicitly say that, but it did heavily hint that. Not really bad, but I wanted to make the syllogism itself as unbiased as possible.

'Are you claiming that organisms that have multiple working parts working complimentary can be the result of something other than design ?, If your not claiming that, then what is your objection ?'

Yes, I am claiming that. I contend that organisms with multiple working parts are much more likely to be formed from evolution and not ID.

'Could you explain and show how Premise 1 which states Something exists either by design or accident or necessity excludes evolution ? Why doesn't the accident/non design of universal laws and the accident/non design of evolutionary process fit into the category of accident ?'

It excludes evolution because evolution is not entirely by 'accident'. Accident infers that there was an original cause, and there was a mistake in the process or whatever. The evolution of organisms from small, simple things to grander, more complex things is not entirely by chance. It contains a healthy dose of chance, but it is not purely by chance.

'As far as the category of accident, based on the deduction of complimentary working parts to justify the belief that humans are the result of design, and in the absence of any other arguments proving the contrary or at least being more plausible this belief is justified.'

Your argument rests on the fact that there are no arguments that are more plausible than that belief. I'd like to point to evolution, which explains complex organisms in a much more probable, evidential way than an intelligent creator designing everything from nothing. Let it be noted that ID has no evidential proofs.

'Con says "he is expected to fulfill that burden, and explain every inch of his assertions and claims. He needs to do so, or he will not have met his burden"

Thanks for reminding me about my burden, allow me to return the favor.....................'

I'd like to point out he still hasn't refuted my rebuttals. They still stand strong.

Let it be known that he still hasn't addressed my final argument dealing with my burden of proof, which accurately showed how I already fulfilled mine. My burden of proof was to show that believing in ID was irrational.
By my opponent's own terms, he should see where I'm going.
He says that rational means that the belief in question must be supported by reason, else it is irrational.
I have shown that ID is not supported by logic nor reasoning, thus rendering the belief in ID irrational.
I fulfill my burden of proof, while my opponent has not, and therefore win the debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "It excludes evolution because evolution is not entirely by 'accident'. Accident infers that there was an original cause, and there was a mistake in the process or whatever. The evolution of organisms from small, simple things to grander, more complex things is not entirely by chance. It contains a healthy dose of chance, but it is not purely by chance."

Even thou I clarified in my argument what I meant by "accident" I think ill reword my 2nd argument so this doesn't become an argument over semantics.

1) Something exists either by intent or non intent or necessity
2) Humans do not exist by non intent or necessity
3) Therefore humans exist by intent

In my argument I meant "accident" as something that happens in the absence of any intent, and yes I see how accident when used usually refers to some sort of effect that had its origins in an intentional cause but the effect deviated from the original intent.

Con says "the evolution of organisms from small, simple things to grander, more complex things is not entirely by chance. It contains a healthy dose of chance, but it is not purely by chance"

Notice con states that evolution happens not entirely by chance, well what is this other thing that evolution is comprised of, since its not entirely be chance ?

Although I suspect Con will argue that the other factor of evolution is chance within the boundary of natural law, that raises the question, is this natural law the result of intent, non intent, or necessity. I'll wait for Con explanations for his claims, seeing that he claims that premise 1) of my 2nd argument which states 1) Something exists either by intent or non intent or necessity" is some how fallacious.

Con says "Yes, I am claiming that. I contend that organisms with multiple working parts are much more likely to be formed from evolution and not ID."

Now I would like to point out, Con doesn't just state that evolution allows for the possibility, but Con states that organisms with multiple workings parts are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be formed from evolution and not ID.

I will give Con an opportunity to back up those claims.

I look forward to Cons response.
Atheism

Con

Atheism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I was looking forward to Cons' defense of their objections. I am assuming Con has not left the debate and will have something to say in the next round.

Extend my previous argument to this round.
Atheism

Con

Atheism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

My first argument was based on how design can be deduced (Using the car example) as an illustration. From this my first argument was .........

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.
2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design.
5) Therefore It is rational to deduce that humans have an intelligent cause.

My second was

1) Something exists either by intent or non intent or necessity
2) Humans do not exist by non intent or necessity
3) Therefore humans exist by intent

Once again, using the deduction as shown in the first argument, and showing the non necessity of human existence, the only other option was humans existing by intent.

At the start of this debate the two sides made their claims.........

"I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief.

My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief."

The question is, Have I as the PRO, shown that intelligent design is rational ?

Has my opponent as the CON, shown that intelligent design is an irrational belief ?

I presented my arguments, CON was not able to show them false, nor did Con show that intelligent design is irrational.

Vote PRO.
Atheism

Con

Atheism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by CarlosMarti123 5 years ago
CarlosMarti123
Wow, atheism voted for himself despite forfeiting the round.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
Just a couple of comments needing answering... don't worry, your debate is safe, uninjured and quite interesting. Take a deep breath, then.... relax...
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
OI, you two, why don't you two set up a debate ?, and not have a debate by proxy through the comment section.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
The process of 'magical selection' as a theory is invalid. The idea of choice without mind or an intelligent life force is utterly illogical and would in actual fact be a miracle. All forms must have an archetype or blueprint prior to their existence, from the first marsheling of the atoms after the 'big bang' right up the the present complex forms. Consciousness is the no go area of materialistic science and will one day - hopefully soon - put physical phenomena back where it belongs, at the lowest level and outermost expression of Mind and Substance. Until that glorious day, we must put up with all this nonsense, that would have Mind exuding from brain pulp as bile exudes from the stomach.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Invalid analogy. You are comparing a house to the universe.

Your most recent comment doesn't make sense.
Evolution is not some magical hand that guides processes, nor does it actively choose certain species to survive.
Natural selection is us simply recognizing that organisms with better advantages will have a better chance of surviving and producing offspring. This means that whatever gene allowed them to survive so well will have a greater chance of being passed on to the offspring. If the offspring have the gene, they'll have a better chance to survive, and this process continues. It is not magical force, it is simply a recognition of what naturally happens in nature.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
The house was built gradually over time (evolution), so it built itself without a mind, blueprint or builder! What utter nonsense! How does the Life-force make decisions without a mind to direct it?
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
Atheism: Because it was Created
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Why does the universe need a creator?
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
It is utterly illogical to argue that anything in the known universe could be built without (a) a Blueprint (b) a Designer and (c) a Purpose. Therefore, the universe itself must follow a Blueprint, a Designer and Purpose. Empirical evidence is not needed for this, the natural Fact is in the logical statement itself.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
IllegalcombatantAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04