A proof against ID and Creationism

As I understand the concepts of IDs and Creationist, they say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Just to provide an easy reference, call this the wonderful theory.One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects. Let’s apply this wonderful theory to god with the assumption that the theory is valid. God is indeed too wonderful and complex to have evolved by itself or his-self if you prefer.Lets make the obvious explicit. According to the wonderful theory, god had to have been helped along by his own god. Well where did that god come from? The answer is that when the wonderful theory is applied to god, it shows that god cannot exist. So something is wrong here?I see two possibilities:1. The wonderful theory is right. This means that god cannot exist because it is not possible for there to be creator of god. That creator would have the same restriction, as would his creator, ad nauseum.2. The wonderful theory is wrong. The basic premise of ID and creationism is wrong. To say that our wonderfulness and complexity imply a god is patently false.So which is it? Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?

I did read this over the other day. Maybe others have too.It just doesn't, in my opinion, seem worth promoting for discussion and I don't see how to fix it by tweaking it.This will bump it for others to look it over.

I've been trying to figure a way that this might be turned into a thread, but can't find any.The problem is that the definition of God is that God is the creator and so there can be no creator of the creator.I'll leave this open and see if others can see a way to fix it.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that the definition of God is that God is the creator and so there can be no creator of the creator.

---

And how did god come to exist?

This is not a place to debate. I am simply trying to help you get something that can be promoted. As such I can only suggest issues that will likely come up.I simply don't see anyway that the OP as it stands is promotable. Other Admins may feel differently.Try to revise the OP as a series of questions, for example:Do ID and Creationists say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself?

---

I read the first reply in the context that the reviewer did not agree with my position and did not care to promote it. I understand your position on not debating here. As you can determine, I am not fond of the creationist point of view. I find their fundamental tennant to be self contradictory and that that contradition should be brought out and discussed.I have been carrying this converstation on with someone close to me (I don't want to publicly engage him until he is willing so "he" will do for now.) and on his end, he ignores my position saying there are some things that just cannot be known. That is a major part of the problem. The fact that he will not even address the question of the origin of god is an indicator that his creationist beliefs have a problem. We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore positions they cannot support.I wish to prosecute this positon. I don't know how else to post this but will think about it and am open to suggestions.

I happen to, in a way, agree with the OP.I am generally more inclined to promote positions I disagree with.The problem is I don't think it will generate any useful discussion. Others have indicated that I'm wrong and shouldn't pre-judge this.So, sigh, I'll promote it; expecting a mess.

Thread copied to the A proof against ID and Creationism thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.