another attempt to take the creator out of the creation. failed!!! cause and effect need a cause to have an effect.
What "creator?" Why only one? In order to take "the creator" out of "creation" (notice how this language presupposes that known Universe is a created artifact with no reason given to do so), She has to be "in" it in the first place. The existence of (presumably) intelligent creator beings of any sort has not been demonstrated. At best
, Creationists can point to unanswered questions in scientific models of Cosmic origins; basically, like pointing to a black box with unknown contents. Not knowing what's in the box is no reason to assert that it "must" contain a diamond nanocircuit key to an alien's flying saucer, or a Victorian time-traveller's Etheric Polyvortex Accelerator Coil, or a gold coin, or a cat whose state of being alive or dead will be decided upon opening the box.
Unanswered questions are just that: unanswered questions. It's necessary to form a hypothesis--and have good reason for focusing on that
hypothesis instead of some other--then test it for validity (not just you, the proponent, but skeptical others as well) before it can legitimately earn the status of "model" or "theory" and receive provisional acceptance as valid.Queston:
How would you be able to tell if the Big Bang was deliberately initiated by one or more intelligent agents, or if it was itself a natural process? If you actually care about being right, don't just jump to some Bible quote or Creationist website, but take the time to look, really look
for contrary evidence to your current position. We humans have a built-in heuristic called "confirmation bias," that causes us to tend to notice what fits into our current views (whatever those might be) and not notice or ignore what doesn't fit. In order to make our best attempt at overcoming this, we have to actively look
for things that don't fit the pattern.