Argument against Intelligent Design

[Amarok]

Hi Guys, I posted this in another section and a member suggested I post it here.

---

I've been a member of another Atheist/Theist forum and have been exchanging multiple posts with someone supporting Intelligent design. I have refuted his arguments time and time again but he's very vague and uses terms he's not defined yet. I'm going to take him to task but wanted to post our last exchange and would appreciate any and all comments. You will see him mention a cave painting scenario which is another back and forth--basically he brought it up firs and stated the painting had to have an intelligent agent/designer and I argued it did--a human, and gave my evidence--Humans are real, they lived during that era, they lived in caves, humans draw/paint, we have skeletal records and areological evidence such as tools, etc. Therefore the most likely artist was a human(s). Well I'll add the post and he highlights his 3 prong syllogism for his "designer" and uses Specified Complexity which I will nail him on but was looking for some feedback on the post below. Thanks in advance.   His post-------below

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this

---

•

Just give in, then, genuflect and ask permission to kiss the ring.

Or he could sit back and laugh at your silly signature

---

Atheist Credo:

No such thing 

An universe by chance which also just happened to admit the observer by chance.

Straw man mixed with argument from incredulity

---

1) Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.
2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3) Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe.

1. Just because it's known to do X does not mean it's the only thing that does X
2.Follows from my first point 
3. Possible isn't good enough and it's worst as no intelligence we know of has ever simulated the kind of complexity found in life 

Oh and Complexity is actually an argument for atheism 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13976