Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Juan_Bottom]

You know you ask a lot of questions. This can be a good thing.

If you want the extreemely simple it no longer makes sense answer: God is love.
That apparently answers both questions, although in a no longer makes sense way.

I prefer the old 'there is no god' routine. Hope that answers all of your questions.

[MeDeFe]

Explain how god has always existed has that doesn't make sense to me

It's easy. Time is a relative dimension of space time; the space time universe itself has always existed. (The Hawkings model ... greatly simplified.) Therefore anything outside the space time universe has always existed within the framework of the space time universe which in turn always exists.

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time. For all we know, in god's space-time, god could be a lobotomized monkey with fins instead of arms and legs and only exist because of atoms coming together purely by chance and forming this monkey that will die 1 minute later because it materialized far above a concreted parking lot and is falling towards its death. But it also materialized with the amazing power of creating other universes, and because eternity for our universe is only a moment (the difference between 'present' and 'past') in god's universe, god is eternal in our universe.

Even if you leave out the bit about the monkey and the fins which admittedly are a bit silly, does that make any sense?

[tzor]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

[MeDeFe]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

God is a sentient universe that creates universes? This gets better and better.

[suggs]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

God is a sentient universe that creates universes? This gets better and better.

Only if you're VERY high right now.
If God is "a sentinent universe" then he's not God, not as anyone thinks of God. You've reduced the word god to an absurdity.

[MeDeFe]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

God is a sentient universe that creates universes? This gets better and better.

Only if you're VERY high right now.
If God is "a sentinent universe" then he's not God, not as anyone thinks of God. You've reduced the word god to an absurdity.

Don't blame me, I'm just the interpreter.

[jay_a2j]

You know you ask a lot of questions. This can be a good thing.

If you want the extreemely simple it no longer makes sense answer: God is love.
That apparently answers both questions, although in a no longer makes sense way.

I prefer the old 'there is no god' routine. Hope that answers all of your questions.

It's an answer. A wrong answer, but an answer none the less.

[Haggis_McMutton]

"I think the main reason people choose to believe the religious version of events despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is because it's easier, and safer. If you ignore most of the evidence your life remains simple."

I heartily agree.

Seriously this kind of irony almost rivals the Pope demanding evidence for global warming, an amazing feat in itself.

I`m hoping it was intentional?

[Gregrios]

"I think the main reason people choose to believe the religious version of events despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is because it's easier, and safer. If you ignore most of the evidence your life remains simple."

I heartily agree.

Seriously this kind of irony almost rivals the Pope demanding evidence for global warming, an amazing feat in itself.

I`m hoping it was intentional?

It's obvious. The matrix has you!

[Juan_Bottom]

"I think the main reason people choose to believe the religious version of events despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is because it's easier, and safer. If you ignore most of the evidence your life remains simple."

I heartily agree.

Seriously this kind of irony almost rivals the Pope demanding evidence for global warming, an amazing feat in itself.

I`m hoping it was intentional?

Check out the Global Warming thread. I think that you will be disappointed in yourself.

[protectedbygold]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

From what my Christian friends tell me, they say that the problem of atheism is that is automatically rules out anything outside of the box. Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe, it stands to reason that it is a flawed position in the first place. Do you also subscribe to this?

[Juan_Bottom]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

From what my Christian friends tell me, they say that the problem of atheism is that is automatically rules out anything outside of the box. Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe, it stands to reason that it is a flawed position in the first place. Do you also subscribe to this?

Duh. Doesn't Christianity also rule out anything outside of the box?
Atheism, at least, can evidence it's claims, wheras Christianity relies exclusivly on faith. By which I mean, all evidence to support Christianity is only accepted within the Christian community.

Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe

I hate this statement too, because we cannot in any way observe any god. It all goes back to the flying spaggetti monster. Why believe in something that can in no way be evidenced?

[Gregrios]

Except that that tells us nothing about the eternity (or lack thereof) of god in god's own space-time.

Or even that he exists in any space time at all, perhaps non space non time. In fact it is the perfect non answer in a way, but it does bring up an important point. Just because something doesn't seem to fit "in the box" doesn't mean a priori it is wrong, it might fit outside the box. It might be wrong but that is no guarantee. A lot of interesting things happen when you get out of the box of space time just as a lot of interesting happen when you start to play with the mathematics of infinity.

From what my Christian friends tell me, they say that the problem of atheism is that is automatically rules out anything outside of the box. Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe, it stands to reason that it is a flawed position in the first place. Do you also subscribe to this?

Duh. Doesn't Christianity also rule out anything outside of the box?
Atheism, at least, can evidence it's claims, wheras Christianity relies exclusivly on faith. By which I mean, all evidence to support Christianity is only accepted within the Christian community.

Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe

I hate this statement too, because we cannot in any way observe any god. It all goes back to the flying spaggetti monster. Why believe in something that can in no way be evidenced?

You should try using bigger words. Maybe then it would sound a little less idiotic.

[protectedbygold]

Duh. Doesn't Christianity also rule out anything outside of the box?

You are either very dense or incapable of understanding the point. Their whole point is that God exists outside of the box. The box would be all knowable things within our universe, to make it simple enough for you to understand. We can empirically study everything within the box. What Christians say, at least the ones I've talked to, is that God exists out of the boundaries of those things we can observe.

By the way, you should know that I'm not a Christian. I have many friends who profess a faith in God who I talk to but I don't buy into their entire argument. I was merely presenting their side and checking to see if Tzor would agree with their point of view.

Atheism, at least, can evidence it's claims, wheras Christianity relies exclusivly on faith.

Any system of belief relies on faith at some point. But since you're being such a smartass, let's see all the overwhelming evidence that there is no god. My Christian friends can't prove to me that there is one and I doubt you can conclusively prove that there isn't.

I tend to think there isn't or he would make it so obvious that there would be no choice but to believe. There is also the problem of explaining why suffering is allowed to take place if this god is a loving and kind being. However, since I don't have unlimited knowledge I cannot totally rule out the possibility. I really don't have a concrete answer either way but at least I can admit to that.

You can return to spreading your conspiracy theories now.

[tzor]

From what my Christian friends tell me, they say that the problem of atheism is that is automatically rules out anything outside of the box. Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe, it stands to reason that it is a flawed position in the first place. Do you also subscribe to this?

I would not say that is the problem of "atheism" but that I have seen many athiests take the "pure science" approach denying anything that is not scientifically proven. This annoys me because it really runs counter to science. I've been directly and indirectly involved in pysics and astrophysics long enough to know that if the present theories aren't blowing your mind (in more ways than one) you are not paying attention. Scientists have been ripping the box to shreads since Einstien.

The problem is that truth is not binary, it is at best trinary. There are things we know as true, things we know as false and things we simply do not know. There are many mysteries that we cannot prove because we cannot yet observe. (The process by which the earth creates its magnetic field is not fully understood for example.)

Athiesm cannot give "evidence" because it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Athiesm can burn straw men of various notions of a god, but that is not the same as proving god doesn't exist. It is more to simply prove that someone's god as they define it doesn't exists but that the very nature of a god cannot exist.

[rocky mountain]

I tend to think there isn't or he would make it so obvious that there would be no choice but to believe.

if we have no choice but believe, then we don't have free will. he gave us free will to choose what we want. also, he wants us to have faith. if he out right comes and shows himself to us, then we don't need faith to believe that he is real, and its not the same relationship that he wants with us.
by the way, there is proof of the bible. there is evidence for the red sea crossing, Sodom and Gommorah, Mt. Sinai, and a couple other things.
evolution is false. they say we are becoming improved and bigger, and smarter. there are human skeletons 9 feet tall found all over the world. we may be becoming smarter in some aspects, but in everything. if we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes around? aren't they supposed to die off?
i could go into more, but i have to get off for the day.

[Gregrios]

Gold, the answer to both your questions is free will.

Every tragedy has a reason or purpose. Some are to teach lessons and some are direct results of how a person lives whether it being the victom or the parents.

Evil breeds evil and that's why the world is as chaotic as it is. As soon as Adam broke God's law he brought forth tragedy into the world.

People born of sin will experience a hard life where as people born of good will have their problems but with the strict purpose of learning a lesson. One result from Satan and the other result from the almighty God.

It all comes down to free will. God blesses the sincere and leaves the insincere to their own consequeces.

And as for God showing proof. I tell you as sure as I'm typing right here right now that God WILL show himself to people who truly look for him. If you honestly look to God for proof he will NOT ignore you.

[Mr_Adams]

Before I start this, I must simply state that I wasn't satisfied with the previous answers...

just one question...were did the dinosaurs come from? pretty sure they wouldnt fit in the garden of eden.....

1st of all, who says Dinos couldn't live in the same time period as man? don't say fossil records, cuz I'll pull up pictures of fossilized humans in Dino bellys. Don't say C14 dating. It's only accurate up to 8600 years.

and mary was married to joseph for how long? and didnt have sex? imaculate conception.....reeeeaaaaalllyyyy...

according to Jewish tradition, a man was "married" to a woman, and then had to prove to the family that he was able to support her, by paying for all her fod, clothing ect. for 1 year. They didn't live together, and were supposed to (but not required to) remain abstanat for that year. What I think happened was that Mary got pregnant in this one year, but Joseph was a strict man, and didn't sleep with her in this time.

And what happened to jesus between 15-30 cos it aint in that great "factual" book know as the bible.

This was answered well enough earlier. he grew up.

Annnnd how about all those missing gosbels...as the bible is only made up of about 30 percent of what was written..

so was this.

oh i could sit here and poke holes in religion all day but im sure i would either killed/bombed/slted/called the devil/told im going to hell etc etc.

still no holes. not even minor bruising. pitiful attempts.

but on one note i will add...how many deaths have been caused in the name of religion..(or should i say the difference in beliefs..

Cant we all just get along

Ya, admit your wrong.

Oops, I almost forgot to tell Caleb to keep away from this thread to

and soon you will put me on your list, because you don't want people around who know what they are talking about. At least not on this side of the argument.

[Mr_Adams]

btw, I'm not in the mood to read the whole thread, so you'll have to settle for me on the first 2 pages.

[muy_thaiguy]

but on one note i will add...how many deaths have been caused in the name of religion..(or should i say the difference in beliefs..

Not quite as many that have been killed "in the name of Communism!" or "For the 3rd Reich!" and so on. In these instances, and many others for that matter, religion was the thing that was persecuted. It ended up having to go underground in the USSR and China, else those people would either be sent to the Gulags or outright killed. And it hasn't even been until recent years that people in China are finally allowed to express religious views. However, it is also being crushed at the same time in Tibet, due to continuing the practice of said people. However, religion was only part of what was persecuted during those times. And an estimated what, 40 million died in WWII, 16 million in the Nazi Camps, 20 million in the USSR, and between 20-100 million in China.

So, yeah.

[CrazyAnglican]

Atheism, at least, can evidence it's claims, wheras Christianity relies exclusivly on faith.

Any system of belief relies on faith at some point.

Well spoken

There is also the problem of explaining why suffering is allowed to take place if this god is a loving and kind being.

To my way of thinking this is not a problem at all. Theodicy has been discussed in great detail by people who are far better capable than I of understanding it. I tend to think of it this way though, God is a loving and kind father. As a father myself, I can relate to the mess my kids make. My daughter is a straight A student and a wonderful kid who can't keep her room organized to save her skin.

Is the mess in her room my fault? No, I tell her to clean it. I tell her how to maintain it. I even help her, at times, when it overwhelms her. In much the same way God tells us through the laws and scripture to live an upright life. He gave an example (Jesus) who showed and told us how to live that kind of life, and he helps us, through the Holy Spirit, to continue when things get rough.

My daughter thinks I'm a tyrant right now, but what are my choices?

Allow her to keep her room any way she wants (that is allow her to dictate the terms of our relationship). I'd have a child that is spoiled and blames me for everything.

Go in and clean it myself? How would she learn to keep her life in order that way?

Let her know that I was there and watching and to establish clear consequences for not meeting my expectations? That's the one. She was learning responsibility and in order to help her do that I had to be as "hands off" as possible, without abandoning her to her own whims.

In this way, I think that evil exists in the world. Whether you believe in tempting spirits or not I think that most true evil is a product of man's direct actions or inactions. I also think that God is nearby, Like the good father he is, giving guidance and help but letting us grow to become better people.

Certainly death presents a problem with this model as long as you assume there is no afterlife, but Chrisitanity assumes a wondrous afterlife. God is specifically grooming us to become part of it.

[Caleb the Cruel]

What Christians say, at least the ones I've talked to, is that God exists out of the boundaries of those things we can observe.

God exists everywhere. He is in the wind. He is in the nature He created. He is in my heart, my friend. He is in every miracle that ever occurs. From the miracle of a great healing to the simple miracle of a thunderstorm.

[herndawg]

Duh. Doesn't Christianity also rule out anything outside of the box?

You are either very dense or incapable of understanding the point. Their whole point is that God exists outside of the box. The box would be all knowable things within our universe, to make it simple enough for you to understand. We can empirically study everything within the box. What Christians say, at least the ones I've talked to, is that God exists out of the boundaries of those things we can observe.

By the way, you should know that I'm not a Christian. I have many friends who profess a faith in God who I talk to but I don't buy into their entire argument. I was merely presenting their side and checking to see if Tzor would agree with their point of view.

Atheism, at least, can evidence it's claims, wheras Christianity relies exclusivly on faith.

Any system of belief relies on faith at some point. But since you're being such a smartass, let's see all the overwhelming evidence that there is no god. My Christian friends can't prove to me that there is one and I doubt you can conclusively prove that there isn't.

I tend to think there isn't or he would make it so obvious that there would be no choice but to believe. There is also the problem of explaining why suffering is allowed to take place if this god is a loving and kind being. However, since I don't have unlimited knowledge I cannot totally rule out the possibility. I really don't have a concrete answer either way but at least I can admit to that.

You can return to spreading your conspiracy theories now.

I love to hear honesty and candidness. Thank you for writing this because it is important for Christians to hear. You have not been presented anything from your Christian friends to show you there is a God. That is a bummer. It is ok to feel a need to have proof. Thomas did. He said unless I put my finger on the nail holes and in his side I will not believe. I ask you, what do you need to believe? Ask God for it, you are his and are very special to him.


I say "I ask for a release of an experience with the living God. Whatever you need for proof or belief I ask for a supernatural breakthrough to happen in your life. I break anything that has been put upon your life that would hinder you from finding your destiny. You are a child of God. In the name of Jesus I pray."
Once again, thanks for writing what you did and I hope you accept my prayer.

The suffering thing is a tough one for all of us. There is the whole eternal perspective to keep in mind. He realizes this life is the beginning of eternity. It lasts but a moment. There is a enemy. It is ok if we don't understand everything. God will reveal things to us though if we seek him on it. I have had many revelations through God about life and understanding things. After all, I would be pretty bummed out if I could understand all of the God who created everything. Sometimes my dog wonders why I talk to the computer or even yell at it at times. As simple as it seems to me I don't think she really gets why. Probably never will.


As a sidebar
Christians are to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers,proclaim the kingdom. In other words, be off the hook weirdo's in a world that may not understand. Be radical sold out believers who give Love to all like it is going out of style. Pure, unselfish, motivated by the Fathers heart. Willing to sacrifice everything anytime to see one soul saved. Don't see it too much do we and when we do it there doesn't seem to be much love attached.
I can't understand God but I know he is in this so called box. I have seen 3 different legs grow out, arms healed, my daughter has been healed from a skin disorder and food reactions. My wife was healed of shin splints, my sons knee. Two testimonies of healing happened today at my church. Real stuff. This one lady had two MRI's done to confirm it. Miracles and things that Jesus did and said we would do more of happen everyday and people are very blind to it and don't seem to seek it much because they care more about whatever else. Seek and you will find. The dead are being raised today, in our time, in our box. Cancer is cast out, deaf ears opened, blind eyes see. People are set free from drugs, addictions, past experiences. My God is the God of creation and still speaks to his people. There is a reality beyond what many think and hold on to. There is a king coming to rule. It all seems crazy because of the times we live in and the unbelief that has spread like cancer.
My faith has increased by witnessing the supernatural, we were created supernatural and are obsessed with it weather it be of God or made up fiction stuff. Jesus is for real and holds the keys of hades. He is not just a lamb, there is a lion coming and he looks a lot different from the Jesus we think we know. I don't usually write in these forums because arguing isn't too much fun and just wanted to point out that God is alive today in many Christians. Just not very many. Religion has taken root in the American church and God doesn't operate smoothly in a religious system. Jesus didn't get along too well with the one in place did he? Christianity is not a religion is it a following of Jesus and a belief of who he said he was and what he taught. Really, eternity is worth looking into a bit. This world has nothing to offer us long term. Short term is for doo doo heads.
This stuff is really happening on a large scale in Lakeland, Fl right now and South Carolina, and a bit here too. Heaven is invading a bit. Many many other parts of the world too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76WDKzS7 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbBUMv0V ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3pRsTg6 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opnCOj58 ... re=related
many more every night at god.tv free to watch from 7-11pm USA
God is moving, he is the same as he always was
Jesus spit and made mud and smeared it on someones eyes, he was healed. That is weird. So is this. God is weird to us and that is ok.
blessings

[dewey316]

I'm jumping in late on this. If some of this has been covered, I am sorry. Also, this is probably going to take a while to write out, so hopefully it is still part of the discussion when I finaly hit submit...

From what my Christian friends tell me, they say that the problem of atheism is that is automatically rules out anything outside of the box. Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe, it stands to reason that it is a flawed position in the first place. Do you also subscribe to this?

The problem here is the whole idea of the box. . I am not going to quote the Bible here, what I am going to do, is pose some questions. The people posting in here in the name of science, seem to be missing a few points. First off. Science and Religion do not need to be at odds with each other. Faith in a God, does not do away with the need for understanding, nor the observation of our universe. God is not falsifiable therefor, the existance of a God is not even in the scientific realm, so really science almost has no part in a discussion about this.

That is basicly another way of saying what protectedbygold said. But it seems the people here for some reason, want something that they can put in the box from out of the box, that would make them beleive. What we aught to be doing instead, is wondering what the box is.

When we look at our box, so basicly, what we do here is apply the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). Basicly this is saying... (quote taken from a random website, if you disagree with the summary feel free to say something)

The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

Ok, so how does this apply to our origins, or this discussion at all. With WAP, we would have to assume, that for the conditions of our excistance to be met (we are here, so I'm going to jump out on a limb, and say they are met), we would need an infinatly large universe for the probabilty of this to be 1.0. (I hope that I am interpreting everything right here, I am not a theortical scientists, all I am doing is rehashing stuff that I have learned)

The problem here is that, what science is telling us, is that space and time aren't infinate. IF there was a single start, something that happened one time, in one place (insert big bang theory here if you want, or whatever origin you choose), then WAP doesn't really apply. So what we have then is Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). This says that if our universe has lots o' planets, and lots 'o galaxys, then there should be many universes out there, that didn't work out to produce organized planets, stars, etc.

I'll quote Hawkins here... As there are some problems with SAP.

There are a number of objections that one can raise to the strong anthropic principle as an explanation of the observed state of the universe. First, in what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in one universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory. If, on the other hand, they are just different regions of a single universe, the laws of science would have to be the same in each region, because otherwise one could not move continuously from one region to another. In this case the only difference between the regions would be their initial configurations and so the strong anthropic principle would reduce to the weak one.

So here is what I take from this. We don't know. We can't explain the origins off all this stuff we can observe. Science can't answer the big question of "why?". If we have a limited universe, with limited space and time, we can't answer why it started. So if we are going to talk about the why behind it, and we are going to talk about God, or we are going to assume that God can't excist its all a personal choice. Its not a scientific one, and to say that it is, is going counter to science. If the universe isn't limited in space and time, then we open up the idea of an infinite universe, with infinate time, this opens up a whole new set of questions that we would have to ask, and allowing the option of infinate, would seem to leave the door open for an infinate God also.

I am not trying to prove the excistance of God, just mearly posing some questions to those who seem to use the excistance of science as evidence that a God can't excist. We either have to descide that we are in a Box, and if we are in a box there is the big "why" question of the box, or we have consider the idea that maybe there is stuff out ther beyond the box that we can't observe.

(I don't know if that rambling makes any sense to people at all, just something to think about). Maybe we will get lucky and someone much smarter than myself, who is a physicist, or who is very well studied in this stuff can shed some more light on this, but all that I get out of it, is the lack of an answer on this from science, and with a lack of an answer, I can only go off my own observations, and own experiances, and come to my personal beleif system. Which I don't think is wrong, and I don't think runs counter to science, even though so called "educated" athiests try to tell me it does.

[MeDeFe]

The problem here is the whole idea of the box.

I fully agree with that sentence, with the rest, not so much. The thing is, there is no box, and if there is one it's in your head. There are only things that exist, and if they exist they can (at least in theory) be observed (although it might be practically impossible if they're too far away to even be seen). The same applies to god, if some creator of universes exists it is in principle an observable creator, if this creator even interacts with us humans (the way many religious people claim) the interactions are definitely observable and the creator is something that humans can scientifically analyze.

Claiming that god is not falsifiable is the same as claiming that telekinesis is not falsifiable, we just haven't observed it yet, but this does not mean that there aren't people who can move physical objects (other than themselves) with the power of their thoughts.


You also misunderstood the WAP I think, WAP does not state (or even imply) that the probability of carbon-based intelligent beings existing has to be 1.0, which means an infinite universe. What WAP does say is that carbon-based intelligent beings can only observe the world in places where carbon-based intelligent beings exist. And they exist there because the local conditions allowed them to evolve there and to live there. It does not matter if the chance of these conditions is 10000000000^(-10000000000000) or whatever small number you want to think of. If there are no such conditions, there are no carbon-based intelligent lifeforms. If there are carbon-based intelligent lifeforms, the conditions must be there.
I'm not going into the SAP here, because I don't have time, but I feel you might have misunderstood that as well.