Do You Believe in God or a Higher Power?

[Final-Fan]

I looked at one of your links and ... OMFG.

So ID’s claim that the inferred intelligence is not supernatural doesn’t sound plausible simply because no such intelligence can be the cause of design in nature. The only unquestionably existing intelligence that qualifies to be the designer, observer and measurer of nature is human intelligence. Design by human intelligence is evident from nuclear engineering to genetic engineering, and for us the universe is observable and measurable. We have models of the universe based on our observations, we measured its parameters, and we calculated the proportions of its content. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. But if human intelligence exists beyond the bounds of nature, then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well.

At this point let me note that Anana, the chief scribe to Seti II, wrote the following in an Egyptian papyrus: “Our religion teaches us that we live eternally. Now eternity, having no end, can have no beginning, it is a circle. Therefore if the one be true, namely that we live on, it would seem that the other must be true, namely that we have always lived.”

Naturally both ID theorists and evolutionists could argue that human intelligence is neither eternal, nor the pinnacle of existing intelligence. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can’t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory that human intelligence is everlasting, and constitutes the pinnacle of existing intelligence, is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.

Utter bullshit, just as WessleWoggle said.
1. We observe and measure the universe.
2. Therefore our intelligence is beyond the universe, i.e. supernatural
3. Supernatural = eternal
4. This theory is tentative due to complete lack of proof, like all scientific theories ought to be.

Wow. I mean ... wow. Really? Wow.

I was going to leave it at that, but it occurred to me that you may not see anything wrong with this logic. After I stopped shuddering at the thought, I decided to give a short overview of objections:
1. Our understanding of the universe is very incomplete, especially with respect to observation and measurement of its contents.
2. I could see an argument for this if we had complete understanding of the universe and its contents, but we don't. We sooooooo don't.
3. LOL WUT. I don't see any justification for saying that supernatural entities necessarily wouldn't have finite existences.
4. I strongly suspect that this person has no understanding of how scientific theories are supposed to be made. First you look at the evidence, then you come up with an explanation for it, then you see how consistent the explanation really is with the evidence. Not come up with a bunch of philosophical bullshit and then -- if you feel like it -- see if there's any evidence for it at all.