Note the following:

But just imagine applying the Intelligent Design theory here. One can say that the person who bought the cup (you) has very cleverly bought the perfect cup, made with perfect ingredients; then stumbled just the perfect way to make the glass fall in the perfect angle at a perfect location of the floor, that resulted in that particularly shaped broken piece of glass.
Clearly, there are so many “perfect”s here. So there you go — you are an intelligent broken-piece-of-glass designer.

There has to have been a cup for the broken pieces to have existed in the first place. Imagine if 'broken piece of crockery' was found in an ancient layer of rock, from a hundred million years ago - it woud be a momentous scientific discovery.

The other glaring deficiency with your friend's argument is this:

'The precision of the Universe doesn’t guarantee that it was not created by an accident.'

The idea of anything being 'created by accident' is self-contradictory. Certainly it might not have been caused by anything, it might 'just be', but the use of the term 'created by' implies 'a creative act'.

Incidentally I agree that intellgent design doesn't prove anything, although I think it's suggestive.

Sure Zzz.



Checkmate!

In criticizing, the argument presented appears to be disingenuous, in that it sets up an strawmanish version of the argument (I don't think you are referring to Intellegent Design theory, but the teleological argument for the existence of the god of classical theism).

Generally:

1. There is order and complexity in the universe.

2. Given the alternative (random chance), it is more likely that there is something giving the order we see in the universe.

This argument makes less strong claims in that it does acknowledge that it is possible that chance created the order we see, but it is saying that it is more likely (given what we know about the universe and our prior experience with order) that something created the order. It avoids the cup criticism is that it agrees with the cup example, but claims that it does not disprove the argument.

Granted, I still think it is a bad argument, but it's a start if you want to simply criticize the post.

I don't regard Intelligent Design as a credible argument, but I find Amio's argument unconvincing. She sets herself too hard a burden of proof by conceding that (1) the world was created and (2) that intention played a role in there somewhere. Consider her last sentence (emphasis added by me):

'The precision of the Universe doesn’t guarantee that it was not created by an accident.'

An 'accident' is something that happens contrary to the intention of the agents involved. So by suggesting that the world was 'created by accident' she is conceding that there was some sentient entity in some way 'prior' to the existence of the world, and that that entity did not intend to create the world, or at least did not intend it to turn out the way that it did. Such a position is borderline incoherent. I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend it.

What she is arguing is that she had the omniscience to differentiate an accident form a planned event. If she had such god-like powers, she would be evidence against her own argument. They is simply no way of knowing at this time of human evolution.

My guess is that the event was just that. Nothing more or less.

Like all the other many events we see every day that have no cause, right?

I would say there seems to be causes, even intelligent causes, but nothing is predictable so things just happen. Intelligence does not imply omniscience or omnipotence. Intelligent creation does not rule out unpredictable events. Everything is an experiment.

I do not see omniscience or even "assume I know" in anywhere at any point, so I am not sure what you are referring to. I am saying that if I wanted to criticize the linked article in the original post, I would say that it creates a strawman version of the teleological argument that makes it look like the argument is making a claim that "order must necessarily come from an intelligence". The teleological argument does not need to make that strong of a claim and can claim "given the extremely high level of order and chance that the universe and life on Earth would have to go through to exist by chance, it is more likely than not that an intelligent being created the universe".

If you are referring to Amio's argument directly, she is replying to the idea that "order must necessarily come from intelligence" by drawing an analogy between the universe and the broken cup. the broken piece might be very weird, unique, and possibly a semblance of order to it, but we would never assume the broken cup piece was intelligently designed; the same for the universe. She does not say she has god-like intelligence that ability to know that the piece was not intelligently designed, but that we have no reason to and would never assume a broken piece of pottery we dropped on the floor was intelligently designed, therefore, we have no reason to believe the universe was designed. I don't think it is a very good analogy, but I get what she is getting at. The article does not appear to be that carefully worded or well written. I doubt that the phrasing issues andrewk pointed out were intentional, but were the result of extremely poor word choice.

In a way, I've already answered your criticism. It is all imagining three nature of intelligence in a different way. The original argument, I would say, uses intelligence in an archaic manner. In a manner of speaking, intelligence created the broken glass, but intelligence could not foresee the event itself. Just a more modern view of the nature of intelligence and its limitations.

othing is predictable so things just happen — Rich

Science relies on that NOT being the case.

Science relies on predictably for practical purposes, e.g. Weather forecasting, projectile behavior, etc. It is constrained by working theories and usable measurement theories and mathematical theories. But at no level are scientific predictions absolutely precise. The reason being is that every event has a certain degree of unpredictability.

What are you talking about when you say "archaic intelligence" and "modern intelligence"? All the original post states is the question of whether the universe was intelligently designed (made by some sort of conscious and purposeful entity, like god or some self-aware cosmic force, as opposed to chance). Are you referring to the difference between an omniscient being and a non-omniscient being? If you are, I don't really see how you are arguing against my original point (that the article sets up a strawman argument that it can knock down and does not apply to the teleological argument as such).

But at no level are scientific predictions absolutely precise. The reason being is that every event has a certain degree of unpredictability. — Rich

It has been said that quantum chromodynamics is able to measure the distance between New York and Los Angeles within the width of a human hair. So that'll do me. Besides, the 'absence of absolute precision' is not relevant for science up to a certain point; general laws and general predictions do just fine. But the notion that 'things just happen' is the abrogation of reason. It's a denial of both science and philosophy.

Precision is the difference between a philosopher and a scientist. It's all the difference in the world. What satisfies a scientist bothers a philosopher to no end.

There has to have been a cup for the broken pieces to have existed in the first place. — Wayfarer

What does that have to do with her argument? That would only be relevant if something in her argument hinged on the idea of there being no requirement to have a non-broken cup first in order to end up with a broken cup. But it's not the case that anything in her argument hinges on that idea.

'The precision of the Universe doesn’t guarantee that it was not created by an accident.'

The idea of anything being 'created by accident' is self-contradictory. Certainly it might not have been caused by anything, it might 'just be', but the use of the term 'created by' implies 'a creative act'. — Wayfarer

She immediately makes it clear that she's talking about causality, not creation with any connotation of a creator, as her #2 substitutes the word "cause." Also, it's clear that she's using "accident" to refer to a lack of intention.

What does that have to do with her argument? — Terrapin Station

As an 'argument against design' it fails, because a cup is a designed artefact, and there can be no broken cup without there having been a cup, which requires a designer.

Also, it's clear that she's using "accident" to refer to a lack of intention. — Terrapin Station

It's not clear at all. 'Created by accident' clearly implies intention, a mistake.

I'd say the mug was designed no question, and the accidental breakage is in parenthesis within that. Seeming randomness, chaos or storyline, happens within the overall framework of the intelligently created universe. Design or randomness is in the eye of the beholder, thus the argument will never end.

As an 'argument against design' it fails, because a cup is a designed artefact, and there can be no broken cup without there having been a cup, which requires a designer. — Wayfarer

The argument the author presents is that just because a bunch of precise factors needed to happen to make a particular piece of cup does not imply that the piece of cup was intellegently designed to be that way, thus defeating the second premise if the argument presented. The fact that the cup is made by humans is irrelevant; it could be a rock formation accidently broken.

A rock formation is not something that can be 'broken'; whatever shape it is in, can be explained purely in terms of geology. A rock formation could never be 'accidentally broken' in nature.

But what is at issue is 'artifice' - the question about whether something is designed or arises by chance. By introducing an artifice into the argument - namely, the cup - I think the argument is self-defeating.

God is reason, in the broadest sense of the term, which every living thing has a personal relationship with, and uniquely designed their forms in correspondence with. Natural selection is from the outside in, and is the universal pressure, just like gravity on every living thing, but from the inside out, every living thing had a personal relationship with the world, and their forms are a result of their reactions to it, which were volitional, rational.

As an 'argument against design' it fails, because a cup is a designed artefact, and there can be no broken cup without there having been a cup, which requires a designer. — Wayfarer

You realize that she'd agree that there can be no broken cup without there having been a cup, right?

'Created by accident' clearly implies intention, a mistake. — Wayfarer

If "created by accident," especially in the context of what she wrote, implies intention to you, you're not very familiar with common ways of using English.

A rock formation is not something that can be 'broken'; whatever shape it is in, can be explained purely in terms of geology. A rock formation could never be 'accidentally broken' in nature. — Wayfarer

Could someone break a rock?

I think therefore I am. Rock formations or a cup would not care about being 'broken' or altered in shape, nor would they rationalize about origins. Only the maker of the cup (self-evident) and creator of cup-maker, rocks, & our minds would have this discussion. Actually the latter Creator doesn't ever discuss or rationalize but extends this ability to us mankind alone. Actually also we are possibly part of this Creator's brain consciousness currently discussing this.