What do we think we should see?

For the universe exist, so many things have to be dialed in just right; on top of all of that, we need all of the right conditions and material required to support life and maintain it on consistent bases. The universe and life discussion is not only an argument about molecules to man, but gravitational strength, all of the necessary ingredients in one place at one time, and so on. So everything in the macro world and the subatomic one would have to have all of their ducks lined up. Creation with all of the vastness we see and don’t see is immense in how large some of the things in it are, including space itself, and small it all is when we think about the particles. I stumbled upon an old video which gives us a glimpse of what a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, is that is also timeless would be looking at and being able to see it at once and everything and their relationship in its place with everything else.

We can attempt to do the numbers (funny and well-done video (Varelse1@ watch this)), but a God who can speak all things (old video well done) into existence and never lose track of any of it is far above us. So can we find God by looking at the universe, I like CS Lewis’s “Finding God (Finding Shakespeare) by C.S. Lewis Doodle art (love the artwork along with the discussion)

A major mistake creationists make when proposing a creator-entity as the cause of our Universe, is in assuming that entity has anything in common with any of the gods of religion.

Not so much, the creator God of the universe has no equals among any god or gods. 

What I was saying is that even if a conscious entity was to be accepted as the cause of our Universe, we'd still know almost nothing about it. There would be no automatic confirmation of any belief held by any of the world religions.

I mention that because at times it seems as if creationists think the only task is to demonstrate a creator-being exists but even if that ever succeeds, we still know that many of the propositional claims of most holy books are quite false.

I will say for the most part I agree with you, seeing it and believing it had to be created isn't enough to know who did it, any more than reading a book and knowing someone wrote it, tells you who wrote it.

cute video

It is obvious that nature could not have designed itself. That is absolute fact. Only God could have designed it.

We should trust the Bible because it is by far the most historically accurate religious book. We come to know God through His word.

However, nature need not have been designed. 

And the Bible's historical accuracy can be questioned.

A note of caution. I always try my hardest to form beliefs concerning factual matters based on the best available evidence, even when the conclusions are uncomfortable. For example, all of the evidence I'm aware of strongly suggests to me that my feeling, conscious self will end (in all ways) when my brain ceases to function. The thought of personal extinction isn't particularly comforting but it's possible to become reconciled to it.

And if evidence of some kind should emerge that leaves us with the only conclusion that some entity with omnipotent-like power is responsible for everything we see around us, then I shall have to greatly modify my belief system to accomodate that.

But there's one thing I'm reasonably sure of: It is that such an entity will have very little to nothing in common with the 'God' of popular religion. All the religions of the world will need to start again.

I think you wrong on nature it doesn't seem to be a product of chaos, the Bible's historical accuracy can be questioned, we can question anything that doesn't mean what we question is right or wrong.

I don't think @MindWalk would see "not designed [by intelligent designer]" as equivalent to "product of chaos" but I'll let MW speak for MW.