Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

quote:

---

For ID, no one has ever formulated a way to disprove it. So, although ID is a logically possible hypothesis, it is not a scientific one until some test has been proposed that could prove it false. And such a test would have to be concerned with the defining tenet of ID, namely that life is too complex to have arisen without the help of an intelligent designer.

---

This is from message two of this thread by Parasomnium. I am happy to see some one else state one of the fundamental theories of ID in that same manner that I see it. Now that this has been said, I have a test of this theory.In my words, the IDs and Creationist say that life (to include all if the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Call this the wonderful theory.One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects. Lets 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 and god cannot exist. It is not possible for there to be creator of god.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?Finally: I am not a genius and I see that this analysis is so obvious it begs to be used. Why have I not seen its use anywhere? I expect that the answer will be forthcoming. And probably in no uncertain terms.BTW: This is my own personal theory and I have not read of it anywhere or anytime. Rightly or wrongly, I lay claim to being its author.

1.61803,
Interesting moniker

quote:

---

And the singularity responsible is the orgin but the singularity itself existed just because it did. ????

---

I have some doubts that everything began with a singularity. I know that there has been a huge amount of effort designing and mathematically testing theories on this, but I don’t think any of them have sufficient justification to claim that they have been validated.The question of ultimate origin is difficult at best and probably impossible to resolve. I have a tendency to think that the matter and energy that make up this universe has always existed. However, that concept is a bit untenable. Intuitively, everything should have a beginning, but it must also have an origin in that something must have caused it.

quote:

---

Atheist suggest that the universe exist because it does.

---

Do you refer to one of the two members whose user ID begin with Atheist or to atheists in general? I certainly don’t suggest that the universe exist “because” it does, just that it is obviously here for some reason. We have a lot of clues, but we really don’t know why. That does not imply any supernatural force.