Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Tiberius]

If you claim I have not shown any evidence so far, neither has the opposing side.

Giving evidence of things that are less complex than their creator is easy, and I could list 5 right now:

Car
Calculator
Mathematics
Mona Lisa
Acorn (less complex than an entire acorn tree)

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

When you have given evidence, it has been easily refuted (your chess game for example). So both sides have given evidence, only yours was mistaken and we have called you on it. That's how science works.

I have at least one. It is evident to me that it is certainly possible that one day, humans will be able to create a robot, faster and better and more intelligent than he is.

Technically speaking, we already have. The problem occurs when trying to get true AI, which doesn't exist in any form yet. The most we have been able to manage is machine learning, but the machine cannot teach itself without being programmed to know how to teach itself.

Another point about your example is the fact that you give no mechanism for determining complexity (as I have repeatedly asked you to do). At least I say that I have no reasonable way of determining the true complexity of things, but if you are to make a challenge that things can be more complex than their creator, you have to come up with a decent mechanism for determining complexity. Otherwise you could just argue that cars are more complex because they move faster, but cars are not as complex as the human body by a long shot.

Given that according to atheism, at its core, humans are no more than an arrangement of molecules.

I give this scenario. Tell me why this scenario CANNOT happen.

According to atheism, there are no gods. It doesn't say anything about us as a species or on a universal level. That would be "according to materialism".

I'm not saying it "cannot happen", I'm saying it never has and there is no reason to think it ever will. My claim that it doesn't happen is perfectly in line with the evidence, and if you want to counter that you will have to give one example (not speculation) of something created that was more complex that it's creator. So far you have claimed all sorts of things about your theory, such as "it's obvious", but you have not produced any evidence that wasn't either (a) completely ridiculous (i.e. the chess game), or (b) pure speculation (i.e. the "in the future we will have more complex robots etc").

Give us something that appears in the here and now, a way of determining its complexity, and we will consider it.