Ah, the ol' watch on a beach argument in a different form.
Science explains things, it's doesn't "create" things (although the knowledge if science can lead to creation). It is a method of understanding and
The idea that there must be a conscious intelligent "creator" is equally faulty. Just because humans are aware of the concept of things being
created, and things having a definite beginning and end, does not mean that there is a creator for everything or that everything has a beginning or an
"God" could just as well be
the universe, a fully functioning entity unto itself--that is not aware of itself and certainly does not
consciously "create." Therein lies the fundamental (and somewhat self-centered) problem, that there must be a human-esque "being" like us. It's just
a convenient way to explain the unexplainable, which does not make it any more accurate.
Additionally, the idea of a "creator" is no more probable than the idea of chance, or that everything has always existed.
Of course, if you see the many wonders in nature, many of them were not "designed" per se, in themselves, they came about through various factors over
time; one who did not understand something could easily say something caused it to directly be there (and this has happened in the past: attributing a
creator to the unexplainable, a convenient explanation). A sandcastle is obviously different, but there are sand structures that could be seen as a
sand castle and were due to the effects of nature and time. Just because we know a sandcastle is manmade doesn't mean a sandcastle can't-or
hasn't-been made "naturally," because we haven't seen everything.
Who's to say science doesn't explain god in a way that mathematical, that god IS the laws and theories of science, even the ones we don't know?
Why must we make him "like us?" To understand him?
I am not an atheist.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)