Why do atheists consider the concept of a creator as invalid?

@WillBGood: sure it answers everything. :) And man is not God to know all :)

@WillBGood: You actually come to contradict the grounds of your belief, because, ultimately, the atheist must believe that everything came from absolutely nothing.
Moreover, it is absolutely within the limits of rationality to allude to the notion that there must be a first cause, in order for a continuance.

God was never created & He has no creator. He always was, always is, and forever will be. He is the first and the last.

So then, why is it that you find it more plausible that the intricacy - order to detail - of the universe, the earth's fine tuning of life, the human genome - which in itself has, merely for ONE strand of it, a building code humongously complex than human language - and the moral law in man's being, all came as nothing but a result of chance/random happenings but most difficult to accept it was created by a creator/an intelligent designer??

The atheist confers to intellect. The inability to consider soundly this basic 'thing' shames the atheist, because (s)he claims to be the intellectual.

We might as well begin to believe then that it is not outside the bounds of possibility for the Eiffel Tower to come about as a result of chance (when the Eiffel Tower in itself is NOTHING compared to complexity of the universe).

@Lincoln98:

"God was never created & He has no creator. He always was, always is, and forever will be. He is the first and the last."

That is, not to put too fine a point on it, mystical, evasive mumbo-jumbo. You might as well just switch the word "God" for the word "Universe" and save yourself a step.

@Lincoln98: As Will above me mentioned, everything you are saying can be reversed and the same logic applied to the atheists point of view. There is no hard evidence for anything you are saying and you purport we have to take it on "faith".

Sorry thats not how a debate works.

@WillBGood: The atheist confers to reason. Now let us apply reason:
1. The entirety of the universe, to its correct to detail fixation and that of the earth's; every star standing in balance to form constellations; every diverse, profound differential species, and so on and so forth, all came about because it just happened OR they were created and set in order by an intelligent designer.
It is no the less than saying the Monalisa, in all its beauty and detail, can result from nothingness and just by chance.

I say again, the burden falls on the atheist, because he must acknowledge, from his premise, that ALL came ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

@Pherick: I did not purport you have to take it by faith. Yes, faith is necessary, but even empirical evidence (creation and its mighty complexities and awe) is all more proof.

Or as I told MaryMum,
"The whole world in itself is evidence of a creator, for if you sup pose that invisible gravitational forces which keep the earth afloat came about as a result of chance and the right amount of necessary matter needed for the sustainment of life, came about as a result of nothing, then a building must be able to be believed to appear out of nothing.

The atheist (must) ultimately confers (that) everything to have come from nothing. He details his grounds as being based on empirical evidence. Well then us the evidence of something resulting from nothing?

The atheist begs evidence for the existence of God but demands it must be on his grounds: that is a mighty bias. If we detail that a child is able to find a piece of hidden candy by direction to the hiding spit as revealed to him, so also the atheist is able to know God only by how He states the way He can be found his and not by what way the atheist decides to pave (or demand)."

@Lincoln98: I really feel like you don't understand how a burden of proof works. Atheists understand that we might not know exactly how everything in the world works, we all always learning, always pushing the boundaries.

What we do have is NO evidence that there was a creator or intelligent designer. So when you popup and say "of course there is a creator" We require evidence of this.

Real evidence, not the rote pre-pasted lines you are copying and posting from somewhere. Just because you think something, doesn't make it true.

@Lincoln98: If it is in any way valid for you to claim that your magical entity has always existed, then it is equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed... and that has the advantage of being a simpler claim, because it removes the middleman.

@Lincoln98: You regurgitate the Argument from Personal Astonishment, but that, of course, is simply refuted.
If things were not the way they are, they would be different.
Wow... who would have thought!?

(Incidentally please note that DNA is not a code)

@newjaninev2: No scientist makes the claim that the universe has always existed. Simply because the basis for that claim is outside the realm of science. It would be much wiser and convicing to admit, that you do not know.

Hmm... perhaps you should re-read (or perhaps read) what I wrote.
I didn't claim that the universe has always existed... I made the point that if it's in any way valid to claim that some or other magical entity has always existed, then it is equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed

@newjaninev2: God is not a magical entitity. And while believers base their faith in an eternal God on His word and His revelation about Himself, you can only base your understanding of life on other human beings and their effort to explain life without the existence of God.

Magic (if it existed) would necessarily violate the physical laws of the universe. If you claim that your god has done that, then... magic

@newjaninev2: You chose the term magic and it shows your lack of respect for those who believe in God and live with God, it shows your lack of respect for their feelings and what they consider to be holy and of utmost importance for them. By this and also by other expressions you proof that you are not neutral and that you feel somewhat superior to Christians. You leave the grounds of respect and honesty and objectivity in that you pretend to sit as judge over things you do not understand. Such behavior does not really serve a good and well balanced discussion and it gives the impression that you do not take people serious who trust in God and live with God and His word.

Where is it written that I must respect such things?
Why would you automatically expect such respect?

Take umbrage if you must, but you'd be more likely to garner my respect if you simply addressed the points I raised.

@newjaninev2: Is being honest written out anywhere? Is being faithful written out anywhere? Is decency and objectivity written out anywhere for discussions or debates? No you dont have to exhibit respect for others. There is a reason that you refer to God as a magical entity. God has absolutely nothing to do with magic.You have already shown clearly that you are not willing to respect those who do not agree with you. This relates to the area of ethics and emotional intelligence. Again, Gods description of man is perfect and cant be surpassed in accuracy. I understand that you are an emotional being and that reason is only a fraction of your personality. The same holds true for me and for all other people including scientists.

"Is being honest written out anywhere?"
Are you suggesting that I have been dishonest?
Are you suggesting that I have been unfaithful or indecent? Please clarify
I refer to your god as a magical entity because you make claims that it can perform magic i.e. it can violate the natural laws of the universe at will.

You have already shown clearly that you are not willing to respect those who do not agree with you.
Why should I respect them, or anyone else? What I do very much respect is their right to disagree with me, and to express their disagreement, and I respect those things so much that I am always very happy to engage with them in discussions about those areas of disagreement.

Ethics is germane only inasmuch as I will not harm you unless I first warn you (that is the heart of ethical behaviour). Do you feel that I have misled you in that area?
Emotional intelligence? What is that?
"Gods description of man is perfect and cant be surpassed in accuracy"
If you make such unsupported claims, you should expect me to ignore them.That seems reasonable.

Why do you introduce the topic of emotion into the matter?

@newjaninev2: Girl you are killing it here. ^_^
You're posts are made of distilled, uncut win.