No its not reasonable it has to become forbidden

What if it doesn't become forbidden? 

Did god create everything?  If so, then isn't the desert designed as well?  Each grain of sand?  In the case of a world where EVERYTHING was designed how can we take one object, the watch, and single it out as designed?

In such a world, we can't.  We do not recognize things that are designed by their complexity.  We can only recognize the watch as designed in a world where other things have not been designed.  We recognize the design by contrasting it with what can arise by natural processes.  We know that watches are a product of mankind, and we know that in the millions of years of human history that there are no naturally occuring watches, and no process to make them.  It is not because the watch is complex (after all there are many uncomplex things that were designed by man, like wooden sticks or modern bananas), it is because of our experiences with watches.

With the universe, how can we determine if it is designed or not?  The only way would be to compare it to other universes which we know are not designed.  And we have no universes to compare it to, so we simply cannot do so.

If not the world will never see peace 

Wars will continue Rape aswell

The movie apparently uses at least one nonsensical study that has never been published in a peer reviewed paper, which tells me what I need to know about its scientific rigor.  I won't watch it, but I checked its wikipedia page.  Most of the people working on the movie were not quantum physicists, at least one person appearing in the film claims they were misrepresented, and it was dismissed by several notable figures in the field.  

If you actually want to learn about quantum mechanics, check out the grand design by Stephen Hawking, or How To Teach Quantum Physics To Your Dog by Chad Orzel.  These are accessible books written by respected members of the field that are based on actual studies and experiments.

I'd argue this is wrong on two accounts.

Like the OP, you're taking the actual definition of "faith" and limiting it to something it is not. Faith, as defined by the dictionary, is not belief in something you have no evidence for. It is simply a firm belief in something you cannot prove. The sports example works well, as I am saying that I have faith in a particular team winning in a specific game. Can I prove that the Chiefs will be victors roughly 8 hours from now? No, I cannot. But I am quite confident in it. Thus, it is faith.

Now, you can argue that some things that require faith have far less evidence for their existence/truthfulness, but again, that's taking the actual definition of word and limiting it in scope.

Secondly, there's an issue with your definition of "reasonable" as well, in that some people may believe it is quite reasonable to assert from what you've stated that they should believe in God/these theoretical football teams. What sounds reasonable to some people does not sound reasonable to others. I have plenty of friends that would argue that the changes they've experienced within their lives from believing in God are enough evidence for them to have faith in his existence. Is that unreasonable? I'm not entirely sure, but at the very least, they certainly think it isn't. Again, this all comes down to what you assert as the basis for reason and evidence.

Faith and Reason are like oil and water. So no having faith is not and can not be reasonable.

That's too bad. You might have enjoyed it. Especially the second one "into the rabbit hole". It's about how science and religion used to  ... Ahh forget it. 

My point is the movie and book helped a grumpy person like me to think positively despite reason for negativity. Some call that faith. I find it reasonable. 

To be honest it's a downer to hear you reply negatively about one of my favorite movies. So with out putting a lot of thought in it I surrender my mind regarding the subject. My happiness is more important. 

I don't think that'll stop.

Faith fills the gaps. As long as our knowledge and reason are limited, faith will always be a part of the equation. Is it reasonable? I'd say it depends on the person. Faith can be blind agaist reason, and it can be established on a reasonable basis.