Certain type of atheism (strong atheism) asserts that there is no creator God, hence the universe was not created by the creator.
False dichotomy. You're proposing that we're limited to the options of "Strong atheism" or "the universe was created by 'the' creator God." We could just as easily posit that the Cosmos was created by a pantheon of creator Gods and Goddesses. Or, that the Cosmos originated naturally as the Big Bang model describes, yet there are still Gods and Goddesses. After all, it is self-evident that any deities that might exist are perfectly willing to sit by and watch the ebola virus take its natural course ravaging the body of a child, or a famine, or a plane crash, etc.. How can you know that such deities wouldn't also just sit by and watch a Big Bang take its natural course?
And yet, it is almost certain that you are a "strong atheist" in relation to all Gods and Goddesses, known and unknown, except for the one you like.
In order for them to assert/claim that, they would have to have objective and observable evidence for the origin of the universe
. In the age of Google, it wouldn't be hard for you to figure out why people think the Cosmos emerged from a Big Bang rather than being sculpted out of clay by Jesus a few thousand years after the founding of Catal Huyuk. So no, I won't do your homework for you.
otherwise I believe "strong atheism" is another type of ideology based on faith.
As I see it, "strong atheism" is pretty much the same sort of thing as "strong a-foursidedtriangleism." "Atheism" means "without theism," i.e., "without belief in gods/goddesses." It's in the same category as "a-leprechaunism" (no belief in leprechauns), etc.. We can agree on a-leprechaunism because we can agree on what a leprechaun is, and that they don't exist.
So what, exactly, is a "god" or "goddess?" How could we tell one apart from a "powerful alien?" IOW, the DS9 Conundrum. In Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
, the plot revolved around a wormhole that was inhabited by mysterious, powerful entities who were not bound by time. The people of the nearby planet, Bajor, called them "the Prophets" and made them the objects of their religion. The Federation officers crewing the space station Deep Space Nine called them "wormhole aliens," and did not worship them. For them, encountering beings of inconceivable power was almost routine (Q, etc.). Note that the two cultures did not disagree about the existence of the entities in the wormhole--they just slapped different labels
So how can you define something as a deity? One common technique is to dial its attributes up to omni-infinity. One problem with this is that the omni's contradict one another. For example, an omniscient being would know all of its own choices in advance; if it was also omnipotent, then it should also be able to change its mind and make some different decision. Another problem is that, having dialed their god up to omni-infinity, the theist then has to construct intricate theological explanations to dial it back down to zero again, to explain why the existence of an infinitely large elephant in the room manifests no observable effects. A third problem is that every argument the theist employs against strong atheism applies equally well against their own
strong atheism--in relation to any god or goddess they don't like.
Furthermore, the sort of "creation theology" you're arguing here is also self-contradictory. In order to posit the existence of "a sapient being" as the explanation for the Cosmos, the requirements for the existence of a sapient being must already be in place. It must be possible for the being to exist, to have certain qualities and states ("sapience," "creativity," "ability to act and generate desired results"). The sapient being exists as
a sapient being (rather than as a bowling ball or a rutabaga) and continues
to exist as a sapient being without randomly turning into all sorts of other things.
In short: things (such as a sapient being) exist
, and things work
in a certain way (the sapient being is able to perceive, think, etc., and when it exerts its ability to create, things get created). Which means: things exist, and there's physics
. But those are the very things you're calling upon your sapient being to explain!
Thus, "creation theism" of the sort your proposing is self-contradictory, and may be dismissed, leaving atheism as the last position standing.