Help refuting an Intelligent design argument

[Jrouche]

Hi Guys, I'm an Atheist and just joined. I'm also participating in another Atheist/Theist forum and usually have great dialogue with Theists. I recently have been exchanging arguments with a Theists supporting intelligent Design and have knocked his arguments down repeatedly but he just posted something which I know is fallacious but not sure if I'll answer sufficiently. Are there any members willing to help me draft a response to his argument? I would appreciate your help. If you're experienced with a 3 prong argument this should be a piece of cake. Best, John

[Jrouche]

Hi all, I've been a member of an Atheist/Theist form for quite some time and usually have wonderful dialogue with Theists (I'm an Atheist). I have been having a back and forth and have refuted arguments for Intelligent Design and was just given a 3 pronged argument which I could probably refute but am quite exhausted. Would someone be willing to help me draft a response? Thanks, John

[Rev. Rye]

Well, without you explaining just what the argument is you want to refute, we can't really help you refute it.

That said, there is a pretty exhaustive list of arguments creationists use and their responses right here. Odds are, you'll find something. If you use CTRL+F, you should find the argument you're presented with, and a decent counterargument to it. Odds are, you might not deconvert whoever you're arguing with, but you will demonstrate to an unbiased audience just what the facts are.

[vulcanlogician]

Hi! Welcome to AF. Glad to have you.

Start up a thread concerning intelligent design in the philosophy, theism, or science subforums and I'll be there.

OR... if you wanna argue whether or not DNA proves the existence of a designer, we already got a thread goin about that

[vulcanlogician]

IDK if I have time to help you draft an argument, but you can bounce ideas off me. What's this 3 pronged argument?

[Jrouche]

IDK if I have time to help you draft an argument, but you can bounce ideas of me. What's this 3 pronged argument?

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

[Jrouche]

Well, without you explaining just what the argument is you want to refute, we can't really help you refute it.

That said, there is a pretty exhaustive list of arguments creationists use and their responses right here. Odds are, you'll find something. If you use CTRL+F, you should find the argument you're presented with, and a decent counterargument to it. Odds are, you might not deconvert whoever you're arguing with, but you will demonstrate to an unbiased audience just what the facts are.

Hi Rev, Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Here is his argument for an intelligent agent.
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, John

[vulcanlogician]

IDK if I have time to help you draft an argument, but you can bounce ideas of me. What's this 3 pronged argument?

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...

[Cepheus Ace]

IDK if I have time to help you draft an argument, but you can bounce ideas of me. What's this 3 pronged argument?

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.

Why one intelligence and not a committee of 23 as the cause of the universe? what difference would the universe exhibit if this became an argument for polytheism instead? this because their religion is monotheistic hence they can't bring up anything inconvenient to their preconceived desired conclusion

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

also  i need a definition of what this specified complexity even is otherwise its a meaningless word liek all the meaningless terms apologists make up to sound like they know what they are talking about

[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