How exactly did God create the universe and the world ? what process was involved ?

What's the Mechanism of Intelligent Design?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1794-how-exactly-did-god-create-the-universe-and-the-world-what-process-was-involved

An intelligent designer creates through power, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work?

We don't know how exactly a mind might act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm, hand, and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer  I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciousness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe? The theory of intelligent design proposes an intelligent mental cause as the origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the backside of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.
 
The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents -- of "conscious activity" as "a cause now in operation"-- provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of biological organisms  in the past. In other words, our experience of the cause-and-effect structure of the world -- specifically the cause known to produce large amounts of specified information in the present -- provides a basis for understanding what likely caused large increases in specified information in living systems in the past. It is precisely my reliance on such experience that makes possible an understanding of the type of causes at work in the history of life.

Explanation: No need for a explanatation of the explanation
W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion





Ann Gauger :  It's still worth considering how a mind might act in the world to cause change. The answer is we don't know. I sit here typing. My mind, mediated by my brain, is putting words into a computer program (designed by other minds, by the way), using my fingers to type. But how does it happen, really? Where does the impulse to press one key instead of another come from? And how do these words, products of my mind, communicate to others through their computer screens? We can't really say how our own minds work to interact with the world, yet we know they do. It is our universal, repeated, personal experience that shows us that our consciousness interacts with our bodies to produce information, but exactly how it works is not known. So why should we expect to know how the agent(s) responsible for the design of life or the universe may have worked? The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information. Rather, it proposes an intelligent or mental cause. In so doing, it does exactly what we want a good historical scientific theory to do. It proposes a cause that is known from our uniform and repeated experience (to borrow a phrase) to have the power to produce the effect in question, which in this case, is functional information in living systems.



Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity  creating biological systems and life.  
Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design.  If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a  degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence.
Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

Meyer, Darwins doubt: At present no one has any idea how our thoughts—the decisions and choices that occur in our conscious minds— affect our material brains, nerves, and muscles, going on to instantiate our will in the material world of objects. However, we know that is exactly what our thoughts do. We have no mechanistic explanation for the mystery of consciousness, nor what is called the “mind-body problem”—the enigma of how thought affects the material state of our brains, bodies, and the world that we affect with them. Yet there is no doubt that we can—as the result of events in our conscious minds called decisions or choices—“will into existence” information-rich arrangements of matter or otherwise affect material states in the world. Professor Asher did this when he wrote the chapter in his book— representing his ideas impressed as words onto a material object, a printed page—attempting to refute intelligent design. I am doing this right now. This example, representative of countless daily experiences in life, surely satisfies the demands of uniformitarianism. Even though it remains entirely possible that we may never know how minds affect matter and, therefore, that there may always be a gap in our attempt to account for how a designing mind affected the material out of which living systems were formed, it does not follow that we cannot recognize evidence of the activity of mind in living systems.

In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information.  Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.

Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition.

A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter.

Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com.br/

Must We Directly Observe the Intelligent Agent to Detect Design?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html

Yesterday I discussed an email exchange with an atheist student who argued that we cannot detect design in nature unless we directly observe an intelligent designer. I explained the flaw in his objection through an analogy.
Let's say you find the remains of a campfire -- e.g., charred wood, a circle of stones, and smoldering ashes. You may reasonably infer that a campfire was present, even if you didn't see the fire as it burned. In the same way, we understand the kinds of effects that are produced by intelligent agency -- e.g., high levels of complex and specified information -- and infer that an intelligent agent was at work. We legitimately make that inference even if we didn't see the agent with our own eyes in the act of designing.
The student replied that there's a difference between detecting a campfire and detecting design in biology. He explained that we operate on the knowledge that humans exist, and that allows us to detect design in the case of the campfire. But, he argued, we haven't directly observed the intelligent designer behind life and the universe, so an inference to design there is unwarranted.
I replied by explaining that in the context of the campfire, it isn't necessary to know if humans were around beforehand. In a broader sense, it's not necessary to know beforehand if an intelligent agent existed to be able to infer that such an agent was at work in a given situation.
For example, let's say that in the year 2150, humans for the first time finally get around to visiting an extrasolar planet orbiting another star. Furthermore, they find that the planet has an oxygen atmosphere. Let's also say that in all our travels, we've never encountered any extraterrestrial alien beings.
The first exploration party to this extrasolar planet discovers a circle of stones with charred wood and ash inside it -- the remains of a campfire! In fact, not only do we discover that evidence, but we also discover buildings and technology designed to transmit radio signals to outer space.
Now prior to this time, humans had no evidence that there were other non-human intelligent agents in the universe. We didn't know whether they existed. But now they're finding evidence of campfires, buildings, and technology on a planet far from home.
Are they justified in inferring design? Of course they are! In fact, even if they find no extraterrestrial beings on that extrasolar planet (maybe the alien civilization went extinct or abandoned the planet), our human explorers would still detect design.
Thus, we may not have direct "observable" evidence of the intelligent agents in the sense that we can see them physically before our very eyes, but we still have ample evidence that these structures were designed. And we can make this design inference despite the fact that we had no prior knowledge that these designers even existed. There is no logical flaw in this reasoning.
In fact, the same reasoning drives the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). SETI researchers don't know if there are intelligent extraterrestrial beings out in the universe trying to send us radio signals. But SETI researchers presume that if aliens did exist, then we could detect their presence.
ID theorists reason similarly. We don't know before we go out and study nature whether we're going to find evidence of an intelligent agent at work. We can even start off our investigation in an agnostic position about whether there is an intelligent designer. But we know that intelligent agents produce systems with high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). If we do find that evidence, then we are justified in inferring design:

• "[T]he defining feature of intelligent causes is their ability to create novel information and, in particular, specified complexity." (William A. Dembski,No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, p. xiv (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2002).)
  
  
  
• "Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely 'find' highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities." (Stephen C. Meyer, "The Cambrian Information Explosion," in Debating Design (edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski; Cambridge University Press 2004).)
  
  
  
• "[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents -- in particular ourselves -- generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. In the first place, intelligent human agents -- in virtue of their rationality and consciousness -- have demonstrated the power to produce information in the form of linear sequence-specific arrangements of characters. Indeed, experience affirms that information of this type routinely arises from the activity of intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind -- that of a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or inscriptions ultimately derives from a writer or scribe -- from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent." (Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).)
  
  
  
• "[T]he discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified information and we know the causal story of how that information arose, we always find that it arose from an intelligent source." (Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design, p. 347 (HarperOne, 2009).)
  
  
  

Thus, in the final analysis, it's not the case that there is no observable evidence for an intelligent agent. Irreducibly complex structures like bacterial flagella or CSI-rich entities like DNA or even the life-friendly architecture of the universeare evidence for an intelligent designer who was at work in designing life.
We don't logically require prior evidence that an intelligent agent existed in order to detect design, because the designer's existence is shown by the natural structures it made, which resemble things that in our experience come only from intelligence. To detect design, all we need is (a) to know the kinds of things that intelligent agents produce, and then (b) to find such things in nature. That isobservable evidence of an intelligent designing agent, even if you don't directly observe the agent with your eyes, or even if you didn't have prior knowledge about whether the intelligent agent existed.

The Standard Model contains a complete listing of the known elementary particles, together with a complete understanding of their interactions. Experiments have tested the predictions of the Standard Model with great accuracy, and there is no doubt that it is an accurate model of the subatomic world. Here are the particles in the Standard Model:



The Standard Model explains the universe with accuracy, and as it has been tested thoroughly, therefore it makes it very difficult to propose any convincing new extension to the model — there really are very few gaps to be exploited. The most famous of these "Beyond the Standard Model" (BSM) theories is supersymmetry , which proposed an additional suite of particles to be added to the Standard Model, but experiments at the LHC have found no such particles . The overwhelming success and acceptance of the Standard Model seems to raise challenges for the philosophy of dualism, in which consciousness is suggested to be held in some vague "immaterial" substance in the brain. As scientists, vaguely stating that an additional substance exists which is not described by the Standard Model is not sufficient: we have searched for additional particles using high-energy accelerators and we have found nothing more.

So the challenge appears to be to try to find where this peculiar "immaterial" mind substance can be found within the Standard Model. The mind-body problem raises the question of how something immaterial could ever interact with the world of matter. How can consciousness ever hope to move arms and legs? What would the interface look like between matter and non-matter? Well, perhaps surprisingly, the Standard Model has the answer as to whether or not something immaterial can affect something material. The solution is that it is absolutely no problem: yes, something immaterial can definitely affect something material.

All particles in the Standard Model can be divided into one of two classes. The first class of particles is the fermions , which are the matter particles such as the electron and the proton which can combine to make atoms. Atoms are made of matter — the "stuff" which makes the objects around us, the objects we can touch and feel. The second class of particles is the bosons , which might be considered the immaterial particles ("immaterial" means "not made of matter"). A beam of light is composed of photons which are bosons — and you cannot touch or feel an immaterial beam of light. However, it is known that a photon (an immaterial particle) can deflect an electron (a matter particle) in an effect called Compton scattering . The following diagram shows a photon deflecting the path of an electron (this is showing a vertex from a Feynman diagram):



So here in one diagram we have an answer to one question which is often raised about the mind-body problem: "Could it ever be possible for something immaterial to affect something material?" The answer — according to the Standard Model — is yes it can, and this is how. The question raised earlier was how could there possibly be an interface between the material and the immaterial. Well, the previous vertex describes just such an interface.

It is possible to cross seemingly unbridgeable gaps between the material and the immaterial. However, elementary particles are not considered to have any internal structure and are surely not capable of sustaining consciousness as individual units. Also, attempting to tie consciousness to any particular form of hardware (e.g., a particular type of particle) appears to be at odds with our intended aim of finding a substrate-independent solution which would be independent of any particular underlying hardware .

So it would appear we have drawn a blank in our attempt to incorporate consciousness into the Standard Model. But we should not give up yet. Because there is something else …There is a different substance, a different candidate to be considered the "stuff" from which our consciousness is made.

This substance is completely tied to the physical world, it is therefore represented in the Standard Model, but it also appears to inhabit a realm above the physical world. What is more, it possesses the desired substrate-independence because it can traverse the world of both fermions and bosons — the material and the immaterial — giving an impression of how it might represent a potential solution to the mind-body problem. This substance never decays, never grows old. In that respect, it is impervious to the damage inflicted by the physical world. But it is also rigorously defined both in physics and mathematics, and it now even has its own law of conservation — which is considered to be on the same level as the law of conservation of mass or energy.

But this substance seems grander than the purely physical: it can represent music and poetry, art and ideas. However, it can also start wars — and bring peace. We find this substance so fascinating that we can stare at it for hours every evening as it holds us spellbound. In fact, this substance dominates our lives to such a extent that it has given its name to this entire current era of humanity. So let me introduce you to this remarkable substance …