Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

I thank The Scapegoat bleats for accepting to opportunity to debate, and I hope that his counter-example provides sufficient opposition. I’m going to make simple arguments to begin; I will address his counter-example when he provides it. Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components: He is infinitely-intelligent He is omnipotent To say that god does not have any of these, or even to say that he only has one, is to suggest that god is not a god, but rather some kind of restricted or limited entity. Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed. Complexity, as a product of understanding, arises when something needs to be complex. For example, a television set is not complicated for any other reason than because it has to be. If that particular television set was not as complicated, then it would either work sub-optimally or not at all. Hence, the television set is as complicated as it has to be – it does not make sense to say that something is so complex that it had to be designed. Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding Comparatively, a television set can be more complicated than it needs to be, but this would indicate a product that lacks understanding. If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system, then you could say that the designer of the television set did not fully understand what was required. The goal of intelligence is to strive for simplicity, and making things unnecessarily complex does the exact opposite. To say that the universe is ‘finely tuned’ is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent If the universe is finely tuned, then it would imply that god doesn’t have any control over aspects of our reality, otherwise he wouldn’t have to tune in the first place. The fact that he can ‘play the universe out of tune’ suggests that he can create a flawed universe, of which he does not want (hence the tuning). This is not to mention how silly it is that god has to make up for his mistakes when he sets the rules in the first place. To say that the universe is finely tuned is to contradict the nature of the creator god. Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence I think this is fairly self-evident, but I will address any objections should my opponent make them. It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind. When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones. So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us). However, in limiting himself to testing conditions, he, at the very least, hides his omnipotence – you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules. And thus, it can be written as so: Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations Conclusion Evidence for god, via complexity, indicates nothing. Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive, and such a creator god could only ever appear be contradictory in nature. Thus, any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical. References Arguments taken from the Youtube channel, 'TrenchantAtheist'. http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_nNy-xPbKas&list=PL47F8B6C872DB6AC1 (Take the two (dot)s out) (For all those that are ready to give me a jump for giving this as a reference, this is a reference, not a source. The difference is that I am not referring to this as researched evidence, rather I am referring to this because I have used the arguments from here, and thus I am giving credit where credit is due).