The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
edgeworthwins
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Is Intelligent Design a rational belief ?

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 2 votes the winner is...
edgeworthwins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 990 times Debate No: 13819
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

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 don't claim that one of my strengths is evolutionary theory, never the less I would like to try out some arguments, and that's the whole point of debate org. now isn't it

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

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

If a person was to come across something like a car, and from this car they perceived function, like how the car moves and can carry people, how turning the steering wheel allows for the driver to determine direction, and how the engine transfers energy into motion, most if not all would conclude that this "car" has its origins in a intelligent designer

This same argument is used concerning humans, eye for seeing, ears for hearing, heart for circulating blood etc

Here is my argument

1) Something which has function has its origins by an intelligent cause
2) Humans have functions
3) There fore Humans have their origins in an intelligent cause
edgeworthwins

Con

I thank my opponent for posting an argument that I actually take interest in and apso defining the topic etc.

Opening Rebuttal

My opposition stated:
1) Something which has function has its origins by an intelligent cause
2) Humans have functions
3) There fore Humans have their origins in an intelligent cause

My opponent's points contradict themselves. For an intelligent source to cause something is a function in itself. Therefore by my opposition's standards the intelligent source which 'caused' [a function] humans the intelligent source must have an intelligent source of it's own because it has a function. This point has a chain reaction and is very IRRATIONAL.

1) An intelligent source causes something
2) To cause something is a function
3) [As my opponent stated] For something to have a function, it must have an intelligent source
4) This means that an intelligent source must have an intelligent source and that intelligent source must have an intelligent source and so on.
5) This is a very irrational belief

I look forward to my opposition's reply
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Thanks for your reply............... in fact your reply was so good, I decided I would have to formulate a whole new argument , so I surrender my first argument, but since there are 4 more rounds , I got a new and improved argument now with 10% extra cheese !!!!!

Definition:

Purpose: The reason for which something exists or is done, made, used

1) Created things only have a purpose if their cause has its origins in an intelligent cause
2) Humans are created things
3) Humans have purpose
4) Therefore humans have their origins in an intelligent cause

Also

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

Ok, lets see what you got for me this time
edgeworthwins

Con

I thank my opposition for the reply and the extra cheese... what a challenge. Oh how it melts in my mouth.

You state that:
"1) Something exists either by design or accident or necessity"
In doing so you put the three terms in the same category. But no, they are not. Design either comes from the need for something or accident that leads to necessity. As a matter of fact they are all in very different categories in relation to creation by an intelligent being.
Key ----> means leads to

Necessity ----> Design
Accident ----> Necessity ----> Design

It is impossible for Design to stand on its own so therefore my opponent stated that:
"2) Humans do not exist by accident or necessity"
But if they WERE the result of an intelligent being they would have to be the result of accident or necessity because it is the REASON for design that is what must be looked at.

With all evidence put together it shows that Intelligent design is very IRRATIONAL.

I look forward to my opposition's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I might want to come back to that necessity/design/accident comments but first...........

You didn't address my other argument from the previous round, I'm guessing you some how missed it, so I shall post it again in this round

Definition:

Purpose: The reason for which something exists or is done, made, used

1) Created things only have a purpose if their cause has its origins in an intelligent cause
2) Humans are created things
3) Humans have purpose
4) Therefore humans have their origins in an intelligent cause
edgeworthwins

Con

Sorry, I had to put in that last argument in a hurry and forgot about that bit.

So in rebuttal to to your statement:
"1) Created things only have a purpose if their cause has its origins in an intelligent cause
2) Humans are created things
3) Humans have purpose
4) Therefore humans have their origins in an intelligent cause"

I ask you how do we know that humans have purpose? For the intelligent source to create or be created simply by design as I stated earlier is impossible without there being some sought of accident or necessity first occurring. I also put to you in addition to my earlier statement:
Where does necessity for something come from?
Not design, for design requires necessity
So it must be accident. By something being an accident which [by process of elimination] the intelligent creator must be the reason of, means that the intelligent creator is an accident and is therefore not intelligent because it has a function but does not have it's OWN origins from an intelligent source. Once again we are faced with a problem. The never ending and the very irrational idea of intelligent creation.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

First I would like to make a few comments about the second argument I made in round 2 which was

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 think I need to clarify what I meant in this argument

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

I didn't quite follow your rebuttal of this argument, also maybe you could provide some examples to help illustrate ?

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

From premise 1) I don't think any will argue that human beings existence is from necessity, its possible that humans could of not existed and going into the future its possible humans will cease to exist

This leaves 2 options, existence from accident or design

Which brings me to my main argument

1) Created things only have a purpose if their cause has its origins in an intelligent cause
2) Humans are created things
3) Humans have purpose
4) Therefore humans have their origins in an intelligent cause

Cons objected to premise 3, Con says "I ask you how do we know that humans have purpose?:

A wise question,

Lets look at premise 3) and its negation (is that the right word ? haha)

3) Humans have a purpose
-3) Humans don't have a purpose

I do not claim to be able to "prove" premise 3, and I wonder if con can "prove" its negation but I would ask, do we have any good reason to believe in premise 3 ? and do we have any good reason to believe in its negation ? Seeing I am the pro I will argue for premise 3, and let Con argue for its negation if they want.

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

Therefore my arguments are as follows

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

And

1) Created things only have a purpose if their cause has its origins in an intelligent cause
2) Humans are created things
3) Humans have purpose
4) Therefore humans have their origins in an intelligent cause
edgeworthwins

Con

edgeworthwins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Its a shame that my opponent forfeited last round, but I am assuming he will post in this final round.

There are two questions that formed this debate, two claims that each side was arguing for which were.

"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 two main arguments I used this debate were

1) Created things only have a purpose if their cause has its origins in an intelligent cause
2) Humans are created things
3) Humans have purpose
4) Therefore humans have their origins in an intelligent cause

and

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

In case my opponents missed it before I will give further clarification of what I meant in this argument.

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

The two questions you have to ask yourself are...........

Have I shown that intelligent design can justified by reason and thus is rational ?

Has my opponent shown that intelligent design can not be justified by reason and thus is not rational ?

Vote Pro

And I thank my opponent for participating in this debate.
edgeworthwins

Con

edgeworthwins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
"Not design, for design requires necessity" Hell NO!!! Design requires a MIND! ABC.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
If a thing or being just appears and functions by accident or without design then it is a miracle - but I don't believe in miracles! No blueprint, no building. Or rather: no blueprint = heap of rubble or mush. Or, big bang = chaotic shrapnel. Intellectual arguments attempting to 'prove' that everything just 'happened' and that Natural Laws are accidental are far worse than any religious superstition. At least we can laugh at the latter, the former is a solid wall against mental expansion and progress.
Posted by PhoenixWright 6 years ago
PhoenixWright
Wow, talk about intense argument and techincal language...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
IllegalcombatantedgeworthwinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
IllegalcombatantedgeworthwinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10