Trivia Creation and Causality: Does Everything Need a Creator?

[WizKhalifaX_]

LETS TALK ABOUT ATHEISM AND ARGUEMENT ABOUT CREATOR​

Hello since may nakapag post dito na nag rant sha about CHATGPT/AI for being biased anyways nag response ako sa thread nya and tried to explain based on my knowledge and research, but I may not be totally correct since alam kong marami pakong need eh research at alamin at tutunan.

Anyways, share ko lang some of my context nung time na wala ako sa mood and my religious friends tried to open this topic na, it is really impossible daw kamo na walang creator like kasi kinompare din nila na kagaya ng mga BUILDINGS at mga SASAKYAN mga BARIL at iba iba pa may mga creator daw, so paano nadaw kaya tayo na human at yung eart at planets so its really impossible daw sa ni argue nila sa akin na WE COME FROM NOTHING (this what I told them) and I even told them na we came from "cells" and how the human evolve (REFERENCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) pero since wala ako mashado sa mood nun and medyo lutang di ako naka sagot agad and wala talaga akong masagot

So anyways, kakatapos ko lang mag code sa project namin and na isipan ko kausapin si GEMINI ADVANCED na mag act sha as ATHEIST and may THEIST na nag ASK sa kanya regarding sa topic, and ito yung result;

So dito, napa AHH ako dahil bat di ko naisip yan na if talagang may creator, then who created GOD? also ito rin na argument na di porket na in real world and current natin ngayon dahil may mga sasakyan at mga buildings at ano ano pang bagay na may creator or designer doesnt mean na lahat is need ng designer/creator talaga, so based nga sa response ng AI as you can see is it makes sense,

So yea, ano sa palagay nyo mga kapwa ko ATHEIST dito? also welcome rin yung mga THEIST na mag ka interesado sa topic, let me know sa comment

DISCLAIMER AND FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE

yung gpt ay nangunguha lamang ng response galing sa internet, included na dito sa reddit, quora at sa ano at ibat iba pang mga platform kung saan ay may nag tanong na rin ng same kung tanong at nasagot narin ng mga tao.

(if may mali man sa mga sinabi ko please enlithen me thank you)

THERE IS NOTHING HERE BUT REACT TO SUPPORT!

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[Coconut Sheep]

one time may napanood akong reel sa fb, pinakita don kung gano kalaki ang universe, and ang universe natin ay parang dust lang sa dami ng iba pang universes. then napaisip ako bigla non, pano cnreate yon? trip nya lang? sa dami ng planets, sa dami ng stars, ano ang reason bat nya cnreate yon? ang sa dami nyang cnreate naaalala nya kaya na may "Earth" syang nilikha? and imagine, gano lang ba kalaki ang God sa paningin ng tao. kaheight lang ba sya ni Jesus? 5ft?6ft?7ft? or 10ft? imagine ganyang kaliit na nilalang kaya nyang gumawa ng unlimited universes. ang absurd lang for me. napaisip tlga ko non

 

[WizKhalifaX_]

one time may napanood akong reel sa fb, pinakita don kung gano kalaki ang universe, and ang universe natin ay parang dust lang sa dami ng iba pang universes. then napaisip ako bigla non, pano cnreate yon? trip nya lang? sa dami ng planets, sa dami ng stars, ano ang reason bat nya cnreate yon? ang sa dami nyang cnreate naaalala nya kaya na may "Earth" syang nilikha? and imagine, gano lang ba kalaki ang God sa paningin ng tao. kaheight lang ba sya ni Jesus? 5ft?6ft?7ft? or 10ft? imagine ganyang kaliit na nilalang kaya nyang gumawa ng unlimited universes. ang absurd lang for me. napaisip tlga ko non

Welp yes this also make since, and if ever man na human sized made all of those thing it just very lol for me like kumbaga if related sa course ko na parang GAME DEVELOPER lang ganun? but yea di rin talaga maiiwasan na mapatanong ka na paano nagawa yun, like ganito ganyan its very complex and even some scientist di nila masagot na paano ng yari to paano nagawa etc2 and that answer is invalidate agad ng mga theist kasi yung tamang sagot daw nyan is gawa ng dyos like very lol talaga eh.

 

[Coconut Sheep]

Welp yes this also make since, and if ever man na human sized made all of those thing it just very lol for me like kumbaga if related sa course ko na parang GAME DEVELOPER lang ganun? but yea di rin talaga maiiwasan na mapatanong ka na paano nagawa yun, like ganito ganyan its very complex and even some scientist di nila masagot na paano ng yari to paano nagawa etc2 and that answer is invalidate agad ng mga theist kasi yung tamang sagot daw nyan is gawa ng dyos like very lol talaga eh.

for me forever nang magiging mystery yan, in my view hindi yan bagay dapat malaman or may ability malaman ng isang "human" lang.

in my opinion, humans are similar to fish in a pond, and the inhabitants of the ponds will never magiging aware sa existence ng ocean or iba pang bodies of water. and so I consider na ang earth ay isa lng malaking pond

 

[jhokadz]

one time may napanood akong reel sa fb, pinakita don kung gano kalaki ang universe, and ang universe natin ay parang dust lang sa dami ng iba pang universes. then napaisip ako bigla non, pano cnreate yon? trip nya lang? sa dami ng planets, sa dami ng stars, ano ang reason bat nya cnreate yon? ang sa dami nyang cnreate naaalala nya kaya na may "Earth" syang nilikha? and imagine, gano lang ba kalaki ang God sa paningin ng tao. kaheight lang ba sya ni Jesus? 5ft?6ft?7ft? or 10ft? imagine ganyang kaliit na nilalang kaya nyang gumawa ng unlimited universes. ang absurd lang for me. napaisip tlga ko non

oo nga noh?
and what if nga kung hindi lang earth amg may nabbubuhay na planeta?
or what if may mas malalaki pa satin na nilalang
ung tining natin sa micro organism un pla ang tinigin ng ibang nilalang saten
hmmmmmm
napakahiwaga

 

[dummy01]

I can refer you an aswer to John Lennox who addressed this question during his debate with Richard Dawkins. Here is a 3min clip: https://www.YøùTùbé.com/watch?v=tM_sUy9RW-E

Another is from UCLA discussed by John Lennox as well: https://www.YøùTùbé.com/watch?v=UIknACeeS0g

In summary, Lennox argued that when Dawkins asked the question who created God, it assumes a created god. He stated that a created god is by definition a delusion, the central claim of Dawkins God is a delusion. He claimed that the fundamental distinction between God and the universe is that the universe came to exist but God did not and then quoted the gospel of Apostle John. Lastly, he questioned Dawkins' concept of uncreated when he stated a materialist view on matter and energy as uncreated.

 

[WizKhalifaX_]

oo nga noh?
and what if nga kung hindi lang earth amg may nabbubuhay na planeta?
or what if may mas malalaki pa satin na nilalang
ung tining natin sa micro organism un pla ang tinigin ng ibang nilalang saten
hmmmmmm
napakahiwaga

This is din ako sa napa tanong nito and began questioning like what if may ka clone tayo sa mutliverse or yung kagaya ni dr strange, like what if rin dahil napalaki ng universe what if babae pala tayo sa ibang planeta HAHAHA pero yeet its still what if tho and still we need proof and science to validate such a thing.

I can refer you an aswer to John Lennox who addressed this question during his debate with Richard Dawkins. Here is a 3min clip: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Another is from UCLA discussed by John Lennox as well: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

In summary, Lennox argued that when Dawkins asked the question who created God, it assumes a created god. He stated that a created god is by definition a delusion, the central claim of Dawkins God is a delusion. He claimed that the fundamental distinction between God and the universe is that the universe came to exist but God did not and then quoted the gospel of Apostle John. Lastly, he questioned Dawkins' concept of uncreated when he stated a materialist view on matter and energy as uncreated.

Thanks for the response but here's the thing, lets say God Created the universe and everything like he created the time and space then he is out of time and space or unlimited so may isang comment section rin na sabi na "Time doesn't apply to God because it was created by him" but as you can see if we accept such a claim na God created time and space then excempt of it then need natin ng validity na its true or we need some proof of it, also claiming na si God is Unlimited dahil sha gumawa ng time at sa space is very metaphysical assertion that is lacks of empirical evidence, as you can see sa science, it need an verifiable evidence para ma validate yung claim nayan, also why God is exempt such a cause? like also walang literal na evidence for such assumptions and as you can see pag yung science can't answer a question, more research ang nangyayari dahil di sila basta basta nag invent ng fake explanation on it, kailangan talaga ng solid evidence.

Also sa second video try to watch this part, it really make sense ( https://phc.onl/#forbidden#/UIknACeeS0g?t=125 ) like you guys believe that God is Eternal and God Created the Universe and as I said nga then Who created your God? provide a solid evidence like hindi yung "God is Eternal, and already there". it is really invalidate talaga na sinasabi nyo na "There is always an Creator" tapos sasabihin nyo na exempted si God dahil there is no caused sadyang anjan na sha or eternal wew, so if talagang ini insist na "God is eternal and the creator of the universe" is still remains a unfalsified hypothesis not a demonstrated fact.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Thank you pala sa thread mo. Haha. Ginaya ko ang iyo. Nag chat din ako na "can you act like a...." - nakuha ko na rin sa wakas ang sagot ni chatgpt. Sinabi na rin sa akin kung papaano gawin pati at ang kung ano dapat sabihin. Leche chatgpt na iyan. Kailangan ko pa utuin. Haha. Nakuha ko na rin kung papaano gawin ang protective spell.​

 

[dummy01]

Thanks for the response but here's the thing, lets say God Created the universe and everything like he created the time and space then he is out of time and space or unlimited so may isang comment section rin na sabi na "Time doesn't apply to God because it was created by him" but as you can see if we accept such a claim na God created time and space then excempt of it then need natin ng validity na its true or we need some proof of it, also claiming na si God is Unlimited dahil sha gumawa ng time at sa space is very metaphysical assertion that is lacks of empirical evidence, as you can see sa science, it need an verifiable evidence para ma validate yung claim nayan, also why God is exempt such a cause? like also walang literal na evidence for such assumptions and as you can see pag yung science can't answer a question, more research ang nangyayari dahil di sila basta basta nag invent ng fake explanation on it, kailangan talaga ng solid evidence.

Also sa second video try to watch this part, it really make sense ( You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ) like you guys believe that God is Eternal and God Created the Universe and as I said nga then Who created your God? provide a solid evidence like hindi yung "God is Eternal, and already there". it is really invalidate talaga na sinasabi nyo na "There is always an Creator" tapos sasabihin nyo na exempted si God dahil there is no caused sadyang anjan na sha or eternal wew, so if talagang ini insist na "God is eternal and the creator of the universe" is still remains a unfalsified hypothesis not a demonstrated fact.

I understand that the burden of proof to the claim 'God is eternal' is on the theist side. I conceded myself that it is unprovable with 100% certainty, but just because something is unprovable it does not mean it is not true. I think we can conceptualize things that are eternal like for instance, if granted the multi-verse theory is true then time, matter, and energy must be eternal. Theists conceptualizes God as eternal the same way the materialists conceptualize matter and energy as eternal too. My contention is why theists are heavily criticize to eternal concept of God when we have Science who conceptualize on laws of nature as eternal as well? Lennox addressed this on the last part in the 2nd clip of the video, that theistic people are being discredited when they believe in something that can't be explain yet people who are on the side of Science itself who believe that there is something they admitted they can't fully explain are not equally criticized. Is it just intellectual bias or is there really an axe to grind against religion? I tend to agree on the latter.

 

[WizKhalifaX_]

I understand that the burden of proof to the claim 'God is eternal' is on the theist side. I conceded myself that it is unprovable with 100% certainty, but just because something is unprovable it does not mean it is not true. I think we can conceptualize things that are eternal like for instance, if granted the multi-verse theory is true then time, matter, and energy must be eternal. Theists conceptualizes God as eternal the same way the materialists conceptualize matter and energy as eternal too. My contention is why theists are heavily criticize to eternal concept of God when we have Science who conceptualize on laws of nature as eternal as well? Lennox addressed this on the last part in the 2nd clip of the video, that theistic people are being discredited when they believe in something that can't be explain yet people who are on the side of Science itself who believe that there is something they admitted they can't fully explain are not equally criticized. Is it just intellectual bias or is there really an axe to grind against religion? I tend to agree on the latter.

Alr, but lets say tama ka nga about "burden of proof" para sa existence of an eternal God that lies with some of the theist making the claim. Anyways, science doesnt usually claim that rules of nature are definitely eternal. There are ideas like the universe, where even those basic rules might vary. However, Scientists accept limits to present understanding and are open to modifying models based on fresh findings or evidence.

Another point is, yes Its true that science studies topics that we cannot totally grasp, such as the potential nature of the multiverse. But theres a significant distinction: scientific hypotheses are built on through observation, testing, and an eagerness to adjust as knowledge advances. The concept of an eternal God frequently rests on faith, not a process of factual investigation.

But yea, Science explore the unknown with interest, then creating a testable theories to grow knowledge, Positing an endless God as the answer to gaps in cience knowledge sometimes prevents further research and depends on unchallengeable faith, Meanwhile the individuals on both sides of the discussion may hold some biases, like science criticizes specific theistic claims due to lack of proof and potential for hindering scientific research. Science lives on questining beliefs and changing theories based on evidence; a process incompatible with swapping scientific methods with faith based claims.

 

[dummy01]

Alr, but lets say tama ka nga about "burden of proof" para sa existence of an eternal God that lies with some of the theist making the claim. Anyways, science doesnt usually claim that rules of nature are definitely eternal. There are ideas like the universe, where even those basic rules might vary. However, Scientists accept limits to present understanding and are open to modifying models based on fresh findings or evidence.

Another point is, yes Its true that science studies topics that we cannot totally grasp, such as the potential nature of the multiverse. But theres a significant distinction: scientific hypotheses are built on through observation, testing, and an eagerness to adjust as knowledge advances. The concept of an eternal God frequently rests on faith, not a process of factual investigation.

But yea, Science explore the unknown with interest, then creating a testable theories to grow knowledge, Positing an endless God as the answer to gaps in cience knowledge sometimes prevents further research and depends on unchallengeable faith, Meanwhile the individuals on both sides of the discussion may hold some biases, like science criticizes specific theistic claims due to lack of proof and potential for hindering scientific research. Science lives on questining beliefs and changing theories based on evidence; a process incompatible with swapping scientific methods with faith based claims.

If Science does not claim that laws of nature is eternal, then how can Science explain the starting point of the Big Bang? Laws of nature presuppose the Big Bang otherwise it is impossible to exist. the multi-verse/string theory (infinite Big Bang in layman's) which is the alternative to God hypothesis or the Intelligent Design (ID) argument, argues on a scientific assumption that matter and energy is eternal or else the theory won't stand. I agree that Science is provisional. 'God is eternal' is faith-based so as other scientific assumptions.

In the end, I have no issue on Science to question the validity of religious claims. I understand the skepticism about religion because I admit outliars exist in religious group. However, do not think that people in the fence of Science is immune to outliars, since it is undeniable that many people in the scientific fields are ideologically driven and outliars too, especially social science. To atheists/agnostics, learn to recognize what is a religious truth as theistic people learn to recognize what is a scientific fact.

 

[the1121789]

"Simulation Theory" unifies everything that exists here as a Subset of a Superset (aka the simulation/simulator).
but if it's true then how do we break out of the simulation? but if it's also true then that means we're also almost artificially created.
AI is the first step, if AI is capable enough of breaking out of its own machine (as a living being, of greater one, or as avatar), then AI will be the key to the simulation.
you can break the simulation through Moksha (Astral Projection, though temporarily), and other techniques (Fatum Project). Witches also did it before through "Flying ointment" (which pay homage to the broomstick symbol used today). It doesn't matter what world view one has (Anti-religion|god/Pro-religion|god(s)/Spinoza's God) the only way through or the only solution is this life. Every facet or view is of the same gemstone but for what reason do we have free will for?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Sablay yung infinite regression. Kahit sabihing dapat meron beginning ang lahat, bakit hindi ung universe lang mismo? Bakit kailangan ng diety?

At wag mo sasabihing creation needs creator. Wala nmnang patunay na creation ang universe. Sablay ang analogy sa building kung saan obvious na gawa ng tao. Plus, hindi "creation" ang building. It is built from ingredients that already exist. It is called a "building" because it is built, not created.

Lastly, aetheist do not "disbelieve" in dieties. We merely are not convinced. We don't operate by assumptions and emotions. We simply describe what we observe and base our predictions from there. Halos lahat nmn ng complex na theory ay base lang sa napakaliit na evidence. It does not require miracles. It just happens na lahat na maliliit na evidence ay nagtutugma. Kaya walang rason para maniwala pa sa kathang isip. Reality is already wonderful as it is.

 

[WizKhalifaX_]

If Science does not claim that laws of nature is eternal, then how can Science explain the starting point of the Big Bang? Laws of nature presuppose the Big Bang otherwise it is impossible to exist. the multi-verse/string theory (infinite Big Bang in layman's) which is the alternative to God hypothesis or the Intelligent Design (ID) argument, argues on a scientific assumption that matter and energy is eternal or else the theory won't stand. I agree that Science is provisional. 'God is eternal' is faith-based so as other scientific assumptions.

In the end, I have no issue on Science to question the validity of religious claims. I understand the skepticism about religion because I admit outliars exist in religious group. However, do not think that people in the fence of Science is immune to outliars, since it is undeniable that many people in the scientific fields are ideologically driven and outliars too, especially social science. To atheists/agnostics, learn to recognize what is a religious truth as theistic people learn to recognize what is a scientific fact.

Anyways im tired answering but here some image I found on fb;

 

[dummy01]

Anyways im tired answering but here some image I found on fb;View attachment 2929374

Fair enough. I just want pushback on atheism and point out the bias against religion. Let's leave it like that.

Side note: With regards to Sir Roger Penrose about his theory on the Big Bang, the Mathematics behind his theory suggests it requires precise physics in order for the theory to work. With that being said, the process in which before the Big Bang happened would be unlikely random process, contrary to what string theory proponents believed. The conundrum is that it circles back to the fine-tuning argument due to unlikely self-driven process for the Big Bang to jumpstart. It may be hard to admit but the stack is against atheism in this one. Btw, the idea came from Stephen Meyer in his interview in the Joe Rogan podcast so all credits to him.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Fair enough. I just want pushback on atheism and point out the bias against religion. Let's leave it like that.

Side note: With regards to Sir Roger Penrose about his theory on the Big Bang, the Mathematics behind his theory suggests it requires precise physics in order for the theory to work. With that being said, the process in which before the Big Bang happened would be unlikely random process, contrary to what string theory proponents believed. The conundrum is that it circles back to the fine-tuning argument due to unlikely self-driven process for the Big Bang to jumpstart. It may be hard to admit but the stack is against atheism in this one. Btw, the idea came from Stephen Meyer in his interview in the Joe Rogan podcast so all credits to him.

Ano naman sablay ng fine tuning argument?

It still operates with the mindset kung saan it assumes that the physics we have now is the intended goal, then it follows a slippery slope - therefore, diety.

Pero this is a flawed thinking. Any event you can think of can be said to have to follow a "precise path" in hindsight. It is rooted from humans playful mind in thinking what if one event or one condition is different, things will not be the same. Pero any other example does not call for a diety. It was all a chain of probabilities.

Perhaps, one reason a diety is required for any theistic belief is to provide comfort. Natatakot sila sa katotohanan wala tayong control sa buhay. Which is a valid fear. Pero, imagining that it must be a plan of a diety might be comforting, it does not make it true.

Anyways, whatever the truth is, atheist want to admire the complexity and awesomeness of the universe as it is. We don't want to spoil it with a preconcieved fairy tale. The universe has outgrown the vastness of the gods a long time ago. Theist should stop shoving your believe on every unknown gap. We only have limited time to explore it.. and you are wasting everyone's time convincing them to believe your favorite fairy tale.

 

[N E G A N]

guys pano nyu ma explain yung existence ng tao at dinosaur possible ba living at the same time?

 

[dummy01]

Ano naman sablay ng fine tuning argument?

It still operates with the mindset kung saan it assumes that the physics we have now is the intended goal, then it follows a slippery slope - therefore, diety.

Pero this is a flawed thinking. Any event you can think of can be said to have to follow a "precise path" in hindsight. It is rooted from humans playful mind in thinking what if one event or one condition is different, things will not be the same. Pero any other example does not call for a diety. It was all a chain of probabilities.

Perhaps, one reason a diety is required for any theistic belief is to provide comfort. Natatakot sila sa katotohanan wala tayong control sa buhay. Which is a valid fear. Pero, imagining that it must be a plan of a diety might be comforting, it does not make it true.

Anyways, whatever the truth is, atheist want to admire the complexity and awesomeness of the universe as it is. We don't want to spoil it with a preconcieved fairy tale. The universe has outgrown the vastness of the gods a long time ago. Theist should stop shoving your believe on every unknown gap. We only have limited time to explore it.. and you are wasting everyone's time convincing them to believe your favorite fairy tale.

The fine-tuning argument as a candidate in explaining the existence of the universe may be flawed but at least it kind of points out to something more plausible [like a fine-tuner may be?] compare to the assumption of random process that many atheists hold. I think the materialists have to concede about the fact that Sir Roger Penrose's theory, and other string theories we have right now, has to cross out the possibility of the Big Bang to happen as random and self-driven that many had presumed. If you find the claim for God as fairy tale then it is fair to say that it is a fantasy to claim that a man is capable of becoming a woman and vice versa, which is a popular talking point of secular liberal lunatics. I agree that there is some element of fear in religion, but the point of instilling that fear is to encourage believers to do or act good otherwise the consequence is hell. This is not alien to us since our secular government is practicing this as well, which by the way is imported from a religious doctrine, specifically judeo-christian doctrine. If you have issues on the God of the gaps that the term your group has made up, then stop shoving us to accept your darwinian process of evolution as if it is your sacred cow that answers to everything Science cannot explain, that even Darwin himself admitted it is incomplete. Please do humanity a favor and stop wasting everyone's time to prove your gender-bender fantasies. Theists are quite busy procreating since most of you are no longer able to reproduce. We have to pump up the numbers so humananity is able to flourish.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

guys pano nyu ma explain yung existence ng tao at dinosaur possible ba living at the same time?

Mukhang mahirap ang sasabihin ko dahil medio conflict ang paniniwala ng creationist versus evolutionist. Ang creationist katulad ng Adam and Eve, literal speaking, kung babasehan ang biblia, wala talaga dinosaur sa written sacred text. Kahit bali-baligtarin pa ang ating world, 100 hundred percent wala. Ang meron lang is mga hayop. Yun lang. Kapag evolutionist, natural, kasama po diyan ang dinosaurs.

Alam niyo ba ang chicken? Hindi ko maalala kung what type of dinosaurs galing ang chicken pero meron siya. Hindi siya katulad ngayon na maliit ang chicken. Malaking dinosaur siya. Nakakatawa nga dahil ang kinakain natin ngayon na chicken, mas malaki siya kaysa sa atin ng panahon ng mga dinosaur. Basta. Nakakatawa. Pati ako, nagulat as in. Sobra.

Pagkatapos ang pinakamatagal na nag-evolve ay ang slot. Oo. Meron hayop na slot. Ito yun o. Tinawag na hayop na slot dahil sobra niyang bagal.​

​

Um. Papaano ba ito? Feel ko kase hindi magkasundo ang creationist at evolutionist and so dinosaur? Kung same sila nag-exist? Hindi sila sabay. Tama. Mas nauna ang dinosaur bago ang tao. Bago kase ang tao, meron dinosaur and then nag evolve into animals pagkatapos andiyan na ang animals na nag evolve naman into human.

Pero kung mag aask na kung ang Adam at Eve na same existing sila sa panahon ng dinosaur..... parang conflict? Walang nakalagay sa bible na meron ginawa ang God na dinosaur but some Theist , isiningit nila ang dinosaur in the bible and so... you know? Meron ng dinosaur in the bible and hindi ko alam kung anong bible verse and hindi ko alam kung anong interpretation. If literal interpretation or more on symbolical or metaphorical interpretation. Hindi ko alam.

But meron dinosaur talaga. Nakita mismo ang buto ng mga dinosaur. Proof iyon na meron at nasa musuem po ang lahat ng patungkol sa dinosaur but in Adam and Eve.... wala e. Ang proof lang is galing bible. Wala na. Iyon lang.
​

 

[the1121789]

bakit hindi ung universe lang mismo? Bakit kailangan ng diety?

Deity is more on "a higher source of power" (it doesn't need to be personified or symbolized), kaya halos lahat ng occultist, at religious, at secret societies and mga sikat ay gumagamit/worship/miyembro nito either para mainfluence ang reality according to will, para ma"bless", or even para maguide lang.
Ang theory kasi, each human consciousness ay isang fragment lang ng greater consciousness (that was once god/entity/deity/monad) at ang support naman dito is yung mga incarnations (or yung mga tao na may past life memories which are usually scouted by such groups). So kumbaga ang soul ng tao ay kabilang sa "creator" or yung tinatawag na "omniscience" (fragmented from the Monad, destruction of monad/old = creation/new), not necessarily na need magcreate para talagang godlike na (although pwede mo ito maachieve through Astral Projection, even omniscience view can be trained).
Hindi convincing kasi masyadong madaming entities na reflection or interpretation lang (also para mas madali madigest ng layman, ginagawaan ng simbolo/imahe), it just shows the limits of human consciousness. Once na maachieve nga ng AI ang consciousness at growth to reach Deity status it will come to a point that it will be "worshipped" for its power. Deity is a symbol of power (which can also mean knowledge), and I think it's normal that people want to harness power and use it but also be against such power (atheism) or even the idea of it existing/becoming.

We merely are not convinced. We don't operate by assumptions and emotions.

That's why you should try Randonauting or simply just look for its results (madami sa yt at reddit). Yan kasi ang undeniable and repeatable proof (with the help of technology) na will over matter, meaningful coincidences, at yung creators ng app na yan ay medyo parang fan ng Matrix (break the simulation), it doesn't prove spirituality but at least it's a good start.
Will over matter: parang ikaw na din ang "creator" ng mga kaganapan. Kumbaga nahäçk mo na ang reality. Isa din yung theory na ang tao ay projector not observer, at mixed opinions pero supported ito ng ibang factions ng physicists at dito din pumapasok yung "Patterning" techniques, declassified na yan, by the world's best/experts on those esoteric fields/study. Not recommended to use but it's a good read.

Eto rin yung parang pahiwatig na simulation nga, nagrerestart lang paulit ulit, parang nakaloop. And that is beautiful kasi it's eternal or otherwise it is nightmarish kasi parang programmed lang ang free will / all of "existence" .