Help refuting an Intelligent design argument

[Jrouche]

Thanks for helping.  1) Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.
              
                              2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity.

                              3) Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life. 

    Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

    John

Hmmmm. Not exactly sure what is meant by "specified complexity." I'll have to look it up. But right off the bat I can tell you that the conclusion of the argument is weak. It doesn't say very much at all. Sure, intelligence is  "a possible cause for the universe and life"... but so what? Does that mean it's likely? 

I mean, alien spacecraft are a "possible cause" for flashing lights in the sky. But so are airplanes and meteorites.

It doesn't matter if intelligence is a possible cause for life and the universe, what matters is if there is a good reason to think so. And there isn't.

I'll get back to you after I look up specified complexity...

---

Thanks V, I have hammered his arguments for dysbut he's one of those long winded peeps that keeps on throwing out fallacies like: Argument from ignorance, argument from analogy--"this looks designed therefore it must have had a designer" BS. Don't waste too much time, I have a little leeway until tomorrow night. Best, John

---

Thanks for helping.  1) Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.
              
                              2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity.

                              3) Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life. 

    Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

    John

this is just a variation of:

1. everything that exists has a cause
   
2. the universe exists therefore it has a cause
   
3. that cause is god
   

this is all that argument boils down to. No effort or time is spent trying to prove why 2) automatically leads to 3), in fact they just assume it to be the case without stating why any alternatives aren't viable because thats the conclusion they are trying to reach.

Logic and premises used can be completely true but without any evidence they can be rejected out of hand without objection.

Thanks Cepheus, basically he's using the Kalam Cosmological reworded if I'm following you? Best, John