Serious physicists agree that the simulation hypothesis is a possibility, so you are the unscientific one saying that believing there might be a creator is believing in the Tooth fairy.
All the information you have comes from your five senses. Isn't some kind of faith necessary to believe that the scientific method would lead to an accurate understanding of reality?
" You are objectively wrong. It requires no faith. There is simply no evidence for an intelligent being at the root of creation, no data that cannot be explained with much simpler mechanisms than intelligence. The proton is complicated by human standards, but it still is nowhere near as complicated as intelligence"
You can look at the CMB and take that as evidence of the big bang, but you are relying on faith when you make either of these statements:
- The singularity that resulted in the big bang was created from nothing, time didn't exist before.
- The big bang was created by God
But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none.
> But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none.
Yes, all of these require faith. Same as being certain that the initial singularity came from nothing (or from "simpler mechanisms than intelligence" which don't also have a clear origin).
In your post, "faith" either means "accepting best current evidence and logic" or "believing that there's a supernatural explanation without any evidence whatsoever" and it can't rightly mean both, because those definitions are incompatible.
> it requires faith to assert that the universe did not have its origin from some intelligent supernatural being
That is false. It does not require faith to assert this, any more than it requires faith to assert that the tooth fairy does not exist, simply because neither the tooth fairy nor ID have any supporting evidence. Actually, the tooth fairy does have some supporting evidence, namely, that people do sometimes get money when they leave teeth under their pillow. There is no evidence for any process with high Kolmogorov complexity at the root of creation. None. Zero. In the absence of any such evidence, it requires no faith to assert that whatever is at the root of creation is not intelligent.