For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest. We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks. Don’t forget the consciousness bit. If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine. All this is for me still pretty awesome. Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe. And photons might look different elsewhere. But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory. I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now. The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.
I believe you underestimate the intense interest and research by the scientific community.
The problem that Science faces is the rule that “an extraordinary claim requires at least some proof”. If that proof is beyond what we are able to observe and quantify, in Science this is not sufficient evidence of mathematical data to arrive at a conclusion that a motivated intelligence is the causal agent.
I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness. Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator? The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions. A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?
It is a legitimate question.
What is overlooked by Theists is the fact that *creation* of new things in the universe is an ongoing process and is happening all the time. The BIG difference is that what we do observe is always mathematical in essence. No miracles, ever, unless they are mathematically permissible.
But make no mistake. The universe and how it functions is being studied much more by Science than by Theists.
The extraordinary claim “God did it” is never accompanied by the properties of God and how He managed to do it.
As atheist myself, I have no problem with the word God as a pre-creation condition. After all Science is looking for a TOE (theory of everything), but regardless of what name we give this condition, it MUST follow mathematical laws.
My greatest objection is that God has been given human properties, such as “He saw it was good”, “the wrath of God”, “God loves you”, which are philosophical teachings, but have little in common with the physical or mathematical sciences of how things work in reality. To me this smacks of ego-centric hubris on the part of the believer.
This creates a contradiction, because to me, God is just an implacable mathematical imperative, without emotion or deliberate action outside the realm of mathematical functions. There are no miracles, there are only probabilities based on mathematical properties and functions.
In the spirit of goodwill I am spending time to give you my main objection to the concept of God as a self-aware and motivated being which existed before we can say with any certainty that there was life (intelligent organism) before there was life. I could agree with the claim that a pre-universe condition was causal to the creation of the universe, but at no time did he claim a self-aware being.
David Bohm, an eminent physicist proposed a hierarchy of mathematical orders from the very subtle to gross expression in our universe. He used the term “insight intelligence” which IMO is a metaphor for “inherently mathematical” potential. Somewhat similar to the expression “the body politic”, which of course is not an intelligent organism, but the description of an existing system.
His book, *Wholeness and the Implicate Order* describes this process in both narrative form as well as scientific proofs. Of interest also is the DeBroglie - Bohm universal “Pilot-Wave” theory.
One can look at mathematical functions and observe creative patterns formed by these mathematical functions. But God does not (cannot) speak any human language. When a person claims, “God spoke to me” is a purely imaginary scenario.
The problem with scripture is that the metaphorical narratives are not mathematically sound and impossible and therefore must be disqualified from consideration as scientific arguments.
However, the mathematical function itself may often appear as *intelligent*, but it would be similar to a computer which is able to produce logical results from the data that it receives. It is a quasi intelligent machine.
And so is the universe. The beautiful and truly awesome powers and mathematical imperatives of energetic and physical interactions gives the appearance of intelligence, but these are not Intentional in essence.
Thus the question is not if creation requires a motivated intelligence, but may well emerge from mathematical imperatives.
IMO, the answer to the second proposition is YES.
Please take a few minutes to view the following links and hopefully this may offer a different perspective on the concept of mathematically creative function, rather than intelligent design by a self-aware and motivated (emotional) supernatural being.
Have you ever seen the complexity of the number 4/3? I am sure you know it equals 1.333333…, but 3/4 can also be expressed as a complex structure? Let’s start with that one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A (start watching @ 25:00)
I really hope you will take the time to watch and read the contents of these links, as IMO, they offer invaluable information for the interested layman, to get a grasp of the mathematical functions which may yield the most amazing results all by themselves.