If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up

The scientific arguments tend not to recognize the difference between “religion” and “the Creator”. God created the universe, man created religion. Religions tend to be someone’s best guess and often go astray. Before we discovered microscopes we were unaware of microbes. Before the telescope we were unaware of galaxies. Our, dare I say, “god-given” senses were unable to detect these things but we were able to augment our sensory perception of the universe. According to biblical tradition, no one has seen the “face” of god. There are two possibilities. God does not exist or we lack sensory ability to perceive Him/them. You decide and go in peace.

Cool. My background is in science........anatomy, biology, physiology.

So beliefs shouldn't be based on evidence? Beliefs should be based on no evidence whatsoever?

Now, if beliefs should be based on evidence, then when all the evidence is natural............should we believe this earth was created supernaturally? Why?

If all the evidence is natural, why shouldn't I believe the earth was created naturally...........and then change my beliefs if new evidence reveals it happened another way?

This is not Quantumlees argument, of course, but has been around for a while and can be summed up as "Who (or what) created the creator?" It is not false logic- whatever that is. The premiss " God existed before everything else and was not created" is in fact two premisses: "God exists" and "God was not created" or perhaps, "God was self-created". If you accept both these premisses than various arguments flow from them which may or may not be logically sound, but none of these arguments say anything at all about the truth or otherwise of the premisses on which they are based. All arguments of logic start from a set of premisses which, just for the purposes of that argument, are taken to be "true" but the premisses themselves always need to be argued separately.

To state "The Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith states that God existed before everything else and was not created" is not an argument for anything but simply an attempt to describe the position of those religions on the existence of God. I could counter the position "God created himself" with the assertion "The universe created itself" but neither of these assertions is worth much until one comes up with an argument in support.  The Catholic Church avoids issues such as these by describing them as "a dogma", which means that no believer is even allowed to question their truth, but non-believers have no reason to accept this position.

To argue that if the universe was created by a deity, then that deity must be extremely complex, demands an explanation and "God was self-created" is not suffcient.          

Has anyone in this forum been convinced by the other side yet?

and it's too complicated to consider every single aspect of the opposing views...for anyone want to be convinced by the opposing side

All rested now....and TY PP........

ignoring the evidence for creation, people hold on to many contrary ideas that are without a shred of any evidence...gullible, deceived and blind!

Petrosianpupil, Drpsholder, and Colin20G:

 First: God or the creator always existed. If you read Socrates he stated plainly that humans have a soul and also he mention there is a creator, he came to this conclusion by asking questions and investigating facts; what is facts he investigated,  the natural world around and governing laws of nature. It is illogical not to be in God. We in the west have lost the ability to questions our professor, it is time we stop believing everything they say. There is a wonderful book title; " Who kill Homer", we have lost our our Greek culture in the west. 

 Lets investigating the natural world or the governing laws of nature: For humans to exist we need oxygen, orbit has to be perfect, it can't be even just a little away from the sun or towards the sun other wise life would cease to exist. We have gravity is that irretuable law, we have complete dominion over the animals,we are superior to the animals, everything according to its kind, that mean only human can reproduce human babies, dogs reproduce  puppies and cat reproduce kittens, in other words, a dog mating with a cat cannot produce offsprings. Human body is prefect, it must be a designer or creator; there is no way it could of been ramdon or by accident ( evolution).

 There is law and order in a universe, something must of give it and the conclusion is there is a creator.

 One last thing, what animate a human because when he dieds something leaves his body; that has to be a soul. 

Your saying that  only what you believe in is real?  Believing does not make anything real, except your belief! Not believing does not make anything unreal, except your unbelief! 

Even if I grant you this "creator" it doesn't tell WHAT the creator is. You assume this creator is a "who", which is biased because only a person's name will satisfy your question as to "who created the earth?".  I assume this creator is a "what", which is not biased because now anything will satisfy my question as to "what created the earth?".

that's the problem that creationists don't understand.

If we found something and knew nothing about it, would you ask "who" created it or would you ask "what" created it? If you ask "who" then you are biased and making assumptions about something that you know nothing about.

So, I say this creator is nature...........natural processes.

We have no evidence of supernature creating anything, but we have evidence of nature creating all kinds of things.

So nature would be evolution, because the idea of the cosmos peeing a rock for along enough time to create the BILLIONS of diversified life forms we see on the earth is the only REASONABLE explanation.

@chessterd5 

So nature would be evolution, because the idea of the cosmos peeing a rock for along enough time to create the BILLIONS of diversified life forms we see on the earth is the only REASONABLE explanation.

Reasonable? only according to those who choose to believe in total absurdities coming from their denying the obvious!

Yes, I agree. God is the only answer that makes sense. He is the master & creator of the universe & I am somewhat saddened at the lengths that people will go to simply to deny him.

(my answers are in bold)

Totally agree

It just saddens me when people deny either side.  Evolution isn't an alternative to God but rather one more piece of evidence for his greatness.  He is the holy of holies, omnipotent, and evolution demonstrates his unbelievable far-sightedness.  The way he calibrated the universe so life can evolve is so genius there's no word for it.  As strict as criteria for life developing is (if the star's the wrong color for example it means not enough or too much of certain kinds of radiation for amino acids to develop into life) and God knew those amino acids would eventually evolve into bugs, fish, eventually rats, monkeys, proto-humans, and eventually humans.  DNA is unbelievably complex, in fact at a deep enough level it's so complicated it gives the illusion of chaos and disorder!  Yet to God it all makes perfect sense.  

Evolution isn't an alternative to God, but rather God's ingenius (even that word doesn't do it justice) tool for allowing mankind to come into the world.  

"Then he must have been created right?"

A first, uncaused cause has always been, God has no creator.