Oh this is going to be good …
Hello. Im new here and trying to understand the quirks of atheists.
And already the insidious well poisoning begins …
If you think that exerting diligent effort to learn the difference between fact and blind assertion is a “quirk”, then you’re going to have a bad time here.
Atheists often have a problem with the Creator, who is called God, why?
What we have a “problem” with, is unsupported blind assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact. Which they don’t. Learn this lesson quickly to spare yourself much pain and embarrassment here.
Your “creator” is  merely asserted to exist,  merely asserted to exist within the pages of a mythology, and  merely asserted to exist within the pages of a mythology containing numerous demonstrable errors. Such as the failure to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, or asserting that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.
Given the lamentable provenance of your mythology as a purported source of “knowledge”, as expounded above, no one with properly functioning neurons would treat its assertions as fact, and certainly not in the same uncritical manner as the numerous mythology fanboys who come here, pretending that they’re in a position to tell us that the world’s best scientists are purportedly “wrong”, because their findings happen not to genuflect before unsupported mythological assertion.
And at this point, it’s time to introduce you to the proper rules of discourse. Viz:
 Every assertion, when first presented, possesses the status “truth value unknown”. Just to clarify the point, this doesn’t mean that the assertion lacks a truth-value, merely that said truth-value remains undetermined.
 The remedy for the above epistemological deficit, is to test the assertion, in order to determine the truth-value thereof. Only once a proper test of the assertion in question has been performed, will the truth-value be known.
 Assertions determined via proper test to be false, are discarded except for pedagogical purposes. Assertions determined via proper test to be true, become our evidentially supported postulates, and are added to our body of knowledge.
 If an assertion cannot be tested even in principle, let alone practice, then it remains in the limbo I described above, and may be safely discarded.
Now here’s the important part. The above rules of discourse apply to all assertions, regardless of their source. Attempts to exempt your favourite assertions from scrutiny of the above sort constitute manifest discoursive dishonesty. We don’t care that assertions presented to us originate in a mythology you treat as a “holy book”, they receive the same treatment as every other assertion heading our way. If you don’t like this, then adult discourse is not for you.
While dealing with the matter of mythology fanboy assertions, there’s another problem for you to address. Namely, the complete failure of mythology fanboys to agree on a global scale, which of the extant mythologies fabricated by humans is purportedly the “right” mythology, and failure of adherents of a particular mythology to agree upon what its contents are purportedly telling us. This embarrassing display of anti-consilience on the part of mythology fanboys should be telling you something important.
Moving on …
Before I proceed to answer your questions, by the Rules of Logic
I always laugh when I see mythology fanboys posturing as being in a position to lecture us on the “rules of logic”, only for it to be revealed later that they know nothing of substance about the subject.
Let’s see if you can answer these questions without looking them up, shall we?
 What is the rigorous definition of ‘implication’?
 Why is incautious use of the material conditional a major source of errors in logical derivations?
 Explain why the rules of passage for quantificational schemata work for the material conditional, but not the biconditional.
Moving on …
and other Laws Providing for Conclusive Proof of Truth of a matter
And at this point, the mere presence of the word “truth” capitalised above, is a strong red flag indicating an agenda.
let us get this out of the way, what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?
If we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:
 Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);
 Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).
If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much laughter aimed at your direction.
Is it by Natural Truths like that popular Mountain we call Mount Everest in the place we call Asia Truth?
or is it by speculative and Test Tube standards of truth like saying in the next 10 years a woman can be the president of America?
And with the above, you’ve already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent.
As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.
Or are you afraid that failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, means you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions? It’s not as if we haven’t observed this being done in the past by mythology fanboys.
Diverting tangentially for a moment to deal with this:
You are an objective evidence, that demonstrates, for any deity. You’re, to start with, the first exhibit. With can move on, to examine the human eye and its complexity to take as part of an objective evidence you can use to demonstrate for a Designer, Inventor, Creator, Coder, Maker, Scientist, Prime Mover, Planner et cetera Deity
The vast body of evidence from palaeontology and molecular phylogeny points to me being a descendant of a long line of apes, of which humans are one species thereof.
Second, if you think the eye was “designed”, then I have some nice scientific papers on the evolution of the eye that destroy this assertion.
Returning to the topic at hand …
Andl Your first answer is a fallacious, the Reversal fallacy, Shifting the burden, may be Tu Quoque.
Wrong. YOU are the one asserting that your cartoon magic man exists, YOU are the one required to support that assertion. Now where have we seen this piece of mythology fanboy duplicity before, boys and girls?