Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god

I absolutely agree to the statement "something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed". I do not believe that the reasoning for intelligent design should be that it had to be designed but simply be that God designed it that complex by his omniscient decision, as opposed to that it somehow is so complex that is had to be designed. Intelligent design should not be reach by the necessity for it but rather by the reality of God's will having chosen to create the universe as it is, has been and will be. I disagree that the universe being unnecessarily complex could show a lack of understanding in the creator. This would indicate that there is a way to measure reality's complexity and compare it against how complex reality must be via necessity alone. this is not possible and therefore no one can ever know how necessary it is for the universe to be as complex as it is at that moment in time unless they were omniscient, which no human being is.[http://www.philosophypages.com...] The reason that a television with excessive wiring indicates a lack of understanding in the producer is that, that wiring costs to corporation more to produce the television, and so if the wiring were taken out they could be making more profit by having less expenditure, leaving them with more disposable income. business need to make profit to prosper.[http://uk.ask.com...] God, however, is not serving any economy when creating the universe and cannot possibly get richer or poorer as he/she/it is omnipotent. I am not sure where, in the R1 definition of 'intelligent design', it indicates that the theory of the universe needing fine tuning, or being finely tuned as a result of this need, is incorporated into it but I negate this contention of Pro on grounds of relevance to both the resolution and definition that they, themselves,w rote for intelligent design. The claim that to "demonstrate" infinite intelligence, God would have to limit himself to a test is correct. What is erroneous is to assume that God needs to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it. While god may not limit himself to such a test, the fact of his omniscience does not suddenly fade to grey but, rather, is unfalsifiable. Falsifiability would mean that God was indeed, limited enough in power to have to prove to someone he was omniscient, thus negating his omnipotence, but he does not have to do this and thus he is still capable of being simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. Where Pro does, indeed, have a point is that the very fact that he can't be tested, or falsified, demonstrates a limitation in God's possible actions. Here is where Pro's definition of omnipotence will, indeed, 'omnimagnificently' whack their argument out of consideration: Pro, in round 1, states that having omnipotence is having universal power, authority and force. I put the 'and' instead of 'or' as this is actually what Pro meant otherwise their case is even easier to disprove. Nowhere, in this definition, does it indicate that to qualify as having universal power, authority and force, the omnipotent being must be capable of limiting its power. Nonetheless, I shall even go as far as to prove that Pro's definition of God and the ability to be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient all can coincide as long as temporal limitations on his potency are permitted to be placed. Possibility 1: To prove that God is omniscient, God can create an identical twin of himself and request it to relinquish its powers to him temporarily before testing it. Once the test is over, God is free to be the jackass he wishes to be and can terminate the twin's existence despite his promise of impermanence regarding the taking of power. Flaws: Morally corrupt and also he may have made the 'twin' smarter than he really is via him being omnipotent but not omniscient. Possibility 2: He temporarily places specific limitations on himself, each placed with a metaphorical time-bomb stamp that mean that for that period of time, he has those limitations but that they immediately return at the set time. Flaws: God could possibly be killed during his sub-omnipotence and irreversibly be wiped form existence by someone like the devil. This is countered by the fact that if God were truly omniscient, he'd see it all coming. So yes, this test is actually flawless but I just fancied mentioning a potential flaw if God fancied a suicidal flunk of a test. Additionally, the theory that god is incapable of relinquishing his power, due to some innate lust for it, would indicate that he lacks the ability to no longer want power. You mistake omnipotence for narcissistic personality disorder. God is able to not want power at all times and temporarily restrict himself with it, as he showed via Jesus. Ultimately, however, he can indeed be omniscient and omnipotent but to demonstrate his omniscience, which he doesn't need to do to be omnicient, he'd have to limit his omnipotence temporarily unless we trusted his 'twin'.