r4r, I already warning you for this in another thread so I won’t do it again, here. But simply quoting verses - however relevant they may or may not be to the ongoing discussion - is not debating.
Now, in this post you gave two sentences worth of explanation, which is good. But the ratio of someone else’s words to yours is way off. Please try to include more debate in the future.
Flying is exactly the example I used, IIRC. And I rather think God would just vanish in a puff of illogic. 
But this only invalidates a subset of gods, of course. Not the God of Genesis who lost track of Adam and Eve.
I think that someone who had some crazy idea of the creation of the universe not involving any god or gods and who persisted this idea in the face of evidence could be considered as having faith also. We mostly talk about religious faith because other types are scarce - but they certainly can happen.
To address the intelligent creator problem. We can’t know this. Having taken a Theory of Knowledge course in college I’m more sensitive to this word than most. But we can assign qualitative (not quantitative) probabilities to some of the options.
One set of intelligent creators has had no interaction with their creation since its inception. We can’t say anything about them, but, since there are an uncountable number of them, we have no reason to pick one over another. Don’t you agree that it is logical to maintain the possibility of the existence of one of these while acting as if none exist?
Then there are various varieties of intelligent creators which are logically impossible. We can assign 0 probability to them.
Then there are a set whose proponents offer various types of evidence, such as the God of Mormons and a logically possible god of the bible. Usually there is a set of supposed history and prophecy associated with these gods. Showing that the history is wrong and that the prophecies never happened has to reduce the probability they are correct. For instance, Joseph Smith translated some hieroglyphics which no one could read at the time and discovered something significant. We can now translate these and discover it was nothing like what he read into it. That doesn’t disprove anything, but it certainly reduced credibility, just like it would at a trial.
Finally given the hypothesis of a god we can make some predictions about how the universe would be. If a God created the universe for us, for example, we’d expect to be on one of the oldest planets in it. Not true, so you have to wonder.
Sum all this up, and I see no creator god model which seems even the slightest bit likely. Given that, it seems logical to lack belief in any. In fact, given how many failures of god-dom we’ve had, it is reasonable to believe that none are true - provisionally. If someone comes up with some decent evidence I’d be willing to reconsider.
Do people wait for the child to be born before making preparations and having the room or sleeping place in order? Or is it the other way around?
Do animals in general wait for offspring to be born before preparing nest or shelter? Or is it the other way around?
Do hosts wait for guests to arrive before preparing lodging and facilities? Or is it the other way around?
Do people commonly purchase or build the machines before having factory space? Or is it the other way around?
For ours to be the oldest planet in a “created” planet and universe reality would that seem logical?
According to the bible mankind came after many other things. Why not our planet after others and our galaxy after other parts of the universe?
After all God had “heavenly sons” before creating mankind according to the bible. And they, angels, have a home according to the bible.
So our planet and the living things on it are not the beginning point of the universe or center of creation according to the bible.
At what point in time did we decide that the bible was the authoritative source of information about the universe and everything in it?
PS I have never seen nor heard of anything complex useful and self-sustaining in our man-made world that came into existence by chance. However, our brain and DNA are so much more complex that at least i must *wonder *if there is something greater, more powerful yes even smarter than i.
I have no smoking gun, but i’m smelling the cordite.
We did not. I’m not even insinuating it. But the poster i am replying to was talking about something that book states. (i believe)
So - you are saying that other planets that are older than ours also contain life on them? otherwise, all of these analogies fall flat - and many of those are not ‘100% true’ either.
Got evidence (outside of the bible and your assumption above) that other planets contain life? Hell, got ‘biblical’ evidence outside of ‘it must mean X’ that other planets have life on them or are even considered to match your description?
Where is the angels “heavenly home” - perhaps The Pleiades?
Which poster are you responding to? nothing in the past page and a half even mentions ‘the bible’ …
that’s not cordite -
If we ‘had to be created’ - what created the creator?
Do people go buy a crib and set up a nursery the weekend after the pregnancy test comes out positive? Though in this case they’d be doing it on their first date.
They wait for the time the children are expected. They don’t prepare in the dead of winter.
Our kids are coming back for Christmas. We have unaccountably not gotten everything read yet.
Given lead time for some machinery, they actually do.
Yes. if the universe had been crafted for us. Getting things ready a month before a birth is a far cry from getting things ready 10 billion years before the “birth.”
Days after. I’m not objecting to humanity taking a few billion years to get here, which would make sense in theistic evolution. (Though why so long if man were created like in the Bible is another story.) But our Sun and Earth depend on the output of supernovae. It wouldn’t happen right after the Big Bang, but it could a lot sooner than it did.
If you mean the ones in Genesis, they seem to have made themselves at home right on earth, shtupping the Earth girls. If they were truly heavenly they’d live there.
What part of “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” don’t you understand?
I was sure the watchmaker argument has been sufficiently debunked by now.
Perhaps you’re having a stroke? 
Someday you’ll get this natural selection stuff.
Actually I was speaking more generically. Any hypothesis that the universe was created for our benefit - Bible, American Indian, Mayan, Egyptian, Greek, has to explain why there was such a long time between creation and us. Our Bible hardly has a monopoly on being wrong.
Me, I think. This kind of believer seems to have trouble generalizing or even thinking about other religions. If they did, they might see the similarities between the oh so obviously bogus faiths and theirs.
yeah - and in there you did use the word "bible’ - but I think he missed your point entirely…
“Assured?” I don’t think that word belongs in the definition, most certainly not as it is used in English. Faith is far from “assured.” At best, it is “presumed.”
An awful lot of things people held as articles of faith did not come true. The Second Coming of Jesus has been prophesied an amazing number of times, and hasn’t actually happened, ever. Every single one of those declarations of faith have turned out to be false.
yeah - he’s screwing with the translation
[QUOTE=Hebrews 11:1 NIV]
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see
[/QUOTE]
Closest I get is ASV -
Well, one can have false confidence – people do it all the time when gambling or getting married (or is those the same thing?) So, okay, faith can be marked by confidence…
But “assurance?” Even the more accurate translation still offers that word, and, well, I don’t see it. “Hope,” yes. But “assurance” is just so contrary to actual fact. Millions have prayed for recovery from disease…and many hundreds of thousands have been disappointed.
King James Version has it as “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” So – as long as you’re merely hoping for it, you don’t yet have the thing; the only substance at hand is the faith itself; there’s no evidence in sight, there’s just the faith that someday evidence will appear?
So instead of assurance that something of substance – and the evidence for it – is on the way, the faith is all you’ve got.
(That’d explain why it soon leads into mention of folks who’d lived in faith: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises … they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise”.)