"You cannot reject the theory that the universe has always existed was designed by an intelligence simply because you cannot test it at this point in time. "
"You cannot reject the theory that the universe has always existed God exists simply because you cannot test it at this point in time."
"You cannot reject the theory that God is the intelligent designer of the universe has always existed simply because you cannot test it at this point in time."
I'll remember that the next time I see ID'ers bashed for their lack of scientific proof, lol!
"I'll remember that the next time I see ID'ers bashed for their lack of scientific proof, lol!"
I would agree with all of those edited statements.
It is quite true that God cannot be proven or disproven using todays scientific tools.
Don't get too far ahead of yourself... ID'ers get "bashed for their lack of scientific proof" because they claim to *have* "scientific proof" (actually "proof" is a poor choice of words on your part, try "support" or somesuch), but turn up empty-handed when asked to show it.
The ID movement claims to be a science-based one. The point is that contrary to their claims, they *aren't*. And if they're relying only on the kind of "untestable" declarations you produced by editing the earlier remarks, then indeed, they *do* deserve to be "bashed for their lack of" scientific support or evidence for their position, especially when they want to shoe-horn it into *science* classes in schools.
Saying, "No one can disprove my belief because it can't be tested in any way" is *NOT* the same thing as "scientific support" for that belief, and people rightly deserve to be roasted if they try to misrepresent the former as the latter, as the "ID'ers" all too often do.
Furthermore, two of your three examples mention "God", which the "ID'ers" tie themselves in knots attempting to claim they are *not* invoking as the hypothetical "designer".