The universe was probably created by an Intelligent Designer.

" Not necessarily. The universe can be defined as mass and energy. The attribute of intelligence and will can very much be something beyond mass and energy" An example perhaps? And are you saying space isn't part of the universe? " Or a flawed premise on your part. The intelligent force need not exist within time," Key word in the resolution: "The universe WAS probably created by an Intelligent Designer." Was. Past tense. Implies time. "or does it need to continue to exist after the creation of this universe." Does it matter whether it continues to exist? "If we associate the beginning of time with the beginning of the universe, we can then say that this intelligent force exists outside of time, designed the universe, and continues to exist outside time since it is not of physical substance. " How can something not physical interact with that which is? Force is defined as, strength or energy as an attribute of PHYSICAL action or movement. Nonphysical forces are a contradiction. And you have no objection to the earlier statement that such a being would have to be complex and therefore itself designed. So, naturally, you ignored it :D. " Recognizing the products of intelligence is different from being able to distinguish purpose. While we can adequately understand that things are more than the product of random chance, as they exhibit order and complexity, we cannot assume purpose because that assumption is tainted by our social habits. " " I find that I must conclude, there is a guiding force in the universe that acts towards a specific end." Contradiction. You either conclude teleology or you don't. "Your notion that time/energy is wasted is only connected with the assumption that this intelligent designer shares certain human characteristics." Intelligence is a certain human characteristic. I'd say that justifies such an assumption. Also, design implies a goal. "However, with the notion that this intelligent designer is (by our standards) omnipotent and exists outside the realm of time, your argument that the more "unimportant" creations are a waste is irrelevant. " As demonstrated earlier, this resolution requires it's existence within time, besides which, why would something outside of time bother with something within it? For that matter, how could it design anything without time? In order to design something, you need a process of design, you need a starting point. That which exists in internal stasis cannot design, cannot think, cannot act, action is a function of time. In order to contain something within concepts like "design" or "intelligent" that assume time, it has to have that quality. " That is not the logical structure of my argument. My argument is that observed complexity equates with a decreased probability of no intelligent influence. I then derive the notion that the observed complexity of the universe is so great that the probability of there being no intelligent influence is similarly low." But you haven't justified that premise in the slightest. What evidence do you have that observed complexity decreases probability of no intelligent influence? "This analogy is lacking. Quantum physics OPERATES via random chance and is highly complex AS A THEORY. The corrected analogy would be the probability of a man devising the concepts of quantum physics randomly, which is absurd. " That would not at all be a "corrected" analogy. The universe is not just a concept, it is reality. Quantum physics itself, is, supposedly, a process in reality. The argument is not whether it's possible to think of the universe without intelligence (what your "correction" implies), only whether it is possible for it to exist. "The complexity is derived from a goal (overcoming randomness) and not from the intrinsic nature of poker." The goal is part of the nature of poker. Without a goal there would be no playing of poker. There might be playing-card-like objects in places, but there would not be a continously manufactured amount of 52 card sets with analogous symbols. And whether you have a goal or not poker is complex. The complexity is the number of hands available. Chess and poler are equally "intrinsically complex". " I don't see the logic in this rebuttal. First of all, this argument only goes to show that the intelligent designer must be of infinite intelligence" In which case he'd have to design an infinitely greater universe. "Second, the only way your argument can make sense is if you assume that the act of the intelligent designer designing the universe was somehow an act that can be reduced to probability." Huh? No, YOU assumed that, by putting in the resolution "the universe was PROBABLY created by an intelligent designer." "This is begging the question. " In which case you are? " Events of man such as murder, the relaying of justice, or even comets colliding are of no great consequence to a being of infinite intelligence that exists outside time or not at all. These are simply not issue of concern for the designer and are only important because they relate with human life. " "The level of organization in the universe and the factors that allow us to exist in our present shape and form could not have simply come about by pure randomness" If a being of "infinite intelligence" (assuming that were even possible, which frankly it's not, intelligence by definition has to have a limit or it would not be able to parse thoughts, i.e. would not be able to think, defeating the point), is not concerned with murder, justice, comets, etc.... WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT IS CONCERNED WITH, the level of organization of the universe, the factors that allow us to exist, the universe itself, etc.? IF it isn't concerned, why bother designing? You keep changing the nature of your floating mega-pink-unicorn with every stroke so much, it doesn't stay still long enough to design a mousetrap. If you define something as infinite and then define infinite as not concerned with x because it's too small, well, guess what? Infinite means no limit, no threshold. If infinite isn't concerned with you or I, infinite isn't concerned with galaxies or quasars or the entire universe as you have defined it, because it is all nothing in the face of infinity. You have succeeded in imagining an intelligent designer that is incapable of designing or thinking or doing anything else. Congratulations. :" The only point of importance is that we are able to understand and perceive intelligence and its forms and evidence of its existence in the universe" Intelligence isn't perceived. It's conceptualized. Perception is a lower-order process, by which you turn lines and colors into cars or trees or whatever. Not the process by which you use sophistral devices to imagine impossible beings. " My argument for Intelligent Design of the universe is echoed throughout the internet" Argumentum ad populum. "The universe operates like clockwork, in recognizable patterns. " Clocks move around once every 24 hours. The universe is MUCH more variable than that. It is nothing at all like a clock. A clock has constant size, the universe (according to physicists) expands. A clock has constant rotation, I don't have a bloody clue whether the universe rotates. A clock has unity of purpose put in place by a designer who does nothing without a function- the universe has no apparent unitary purpose and a million things that don't seem to function usefully. "Our very existence is the result of extremely specific and highly improbably if not impossible circumstances." This is a misunderstanding of probability. There are quadrillions of stars. With all kinds of random forms and such. Even if each star has a miniscule chance of turning out this way, when you get a sample that huge, almost anything that can happen does. Meanwhile you give us a sample of one deity- and expect everything.