We couldn’t, but we’re human.
Why are you placing human constraints on the Creator?
How does a Creator who exists outside of time DO anything? Doing requires change. Change requires time. If the Creator is really timeless then he can’t actually create anything.
What you seem utterly unaware of and (apparently remain oblivious to attempts at correction) is that the atom is entirely explicable in terms of natural physical processes. The fact that you personally can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s magic.
Well, I am trying to state my hypothesis as clearly as I can:
The atom’s structure, functionality and complexity are amazing, are they not? So amazing that you’d almost have to believe there is evidence of design in there?
I believe so. For those who don’t believe so, my question stands: How much structure/complexity/functionality would you accept as evidence of a designer?
Aha… so this list which doesn’t allow for the possibility of an intelligent creator, is somehow going to be evidence that there isn’t an intelligent creator when it inevitably doesn’t find one?
Well that settles it.
??
At least try and give something other than an unqualified assertion, debates would go nowhere if all each party did was simply assert their positions at each other.
Apologies to those I didn’t get a chance to respond to tonight, hopefully there’ll be time tomorrow.
Good night.
No, they aren’t. An atom is stupidly simple, actually. It’s a bunch of protons and neutrons bound together by the strong nuclear force, surrounded by electrons which are attracted by the opposite electrical charge. You can throw all these things together, smack them around a bit and you’ll wind up with some atoms, mostly of hydrogen. Add some pressure and heat and these hydrogen atoms are crushed together to make heavier atoms. Lather, rinse, repeat.
We have evidence for the existence of universes. We have no evidence for the existence of Creators. So an uncreated universe is more plausible than an uncreated Creator. QED.
I don’t know from “amazing.” That’s just subjective emotion, and it’s neither here nor there. The question is whether it’s explicable in terms of natural processes, and it is.
I challenge this assertion. Atoms are not complex. They are composed of quarks and electrons whose interactions are solely governed by the four fundamental forces. They have a small number of components with a very limited way of joining together. Any apparent structure is a result of those limits.
This does not fit any definition of ‘complex’ that I am aware of.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Alright, let me explain it like so: I hear a noise in my attic. Living in northern Wisconsin, I can think of a number of different animals that live here that could be the cause of the sound, along with the possibility of wind or some mechanical action. Investigation shows me evidence that this sound is caused by some bats.
I did not make allowances in my hypothesis of what could be causing the sound for sky fairies, but this doesn’t mean that there is still the possibility that sky fairies were causing the sound. I discovered the cause of the sound.
The same can be said for what creates atoms. Scientists didn’t make allowances in their hypotheses that God did it. Once sufficient proof was found as to what caused the formation of atoms, there was no further need to say, “Uh, maybe God did it.”
Once an explanation has been found there’s no reason to toss out additional complications. A simple explanation that accounts for all observable evidence will do.
Is it really a debate if one side consists of only one person using only the ‘la la la I can’t hear you!’-argument?
Not my problem now, is it? 
I don’t think the quark qualifies either–not as THE builiding block. Leptons–that is, electrons, muons, neutrons, & such–do not consist of quarks; nor do photons.
Why? That’s all you’re doing.
Oh, the irony…
If I’d never seen or even heard of a bicycle before, I’m pretty sure I could still recognize one as being a kind of machine designed and constructed by humans. That’s because the bicycle has several characteristics in common with other man-made objects (e.g. wheels), characteristics that are not shared by plants, animals, rocks, etc.
In other words, I could recognize a bicycle as being designed by an intelligent being because it is different from the many objects in the world that are NOT designed by an intelligent being. If everything in the world really looked like it was intelligently designed, I’d have no reason to suspect that the bicycle was a man-made object. It could just as plausibly be a naturally occurring mineral formation or something.
By what measure of complexity is the atom a complex thing?
Which creator?