Kazim wrote:As a scientist, I have devoted my career to mastering the only reliable way we have of knowing the universe: the empirical method, the combination of theory and observation propounded by 17th and 18th Century philosophers like Galileo, Locke, Newton, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and their successors. We construct our understanding by working from the simple to the complex. We understand atoms in terms of elementary particles and their forces, such as quarks, leptons, gluons, and photons. We understand molecules and chemistry in terms of atoms and their interactions. We understand biology in terms of the underlying chemistry and its emergent properties. We understand intelligence in terms of the complex interactions of the underlying neurological or electronic substrate.
Of all the things we know of in the universe, the most complex is intelligence. To posit an intelligence as the creator and driving force of everything else makes no sense, since it would itself require explanation in terms of simpler underlying entities. It makes no more sense than 2 + 2 = 5. It is not incombent upon a reasonable, fair, open-minded person to remain agnostic on that point.
While it's true we understand nearly everything in the atomic and subatomic range, we have huge problems in understanding the macroscopic world. The last article I read postulated a whopping 99.6% dark matter in the universe, something we don't know anything about other than "it has to be there or our model fails and the galaxies fall apart", and mainstream seems to be aroun 70 - 90 %.
As a scientist, I find any approach that that requires a fudge factor of that magnitude highly debatable, and definitely not something I'd take as a reasoning to "deny with certainty" the existence of something out there.
I used to have the famous poster of "and God said "let there be light" followed by the Maxwell equations on my office wall. Was a great conversation starter and joke, till I realized that actually that was the one thing I didn't know how to disprove. After all, science confirms it all started with a big bang, in a flash so to say.
Combine that with the notion that the whole structure of the universe today, from the imbalance between matter and anit-matter to the formation of galaxy clusters and differences in the cosmic background radiation, is deducted from "anisotropies" in the first moments of existence and you end up with really not needing much of a "creative influence" to have set all that what we can prove today in motion. Some invisible influence. not being discernible from the effect of something as postulated as dark matter. Somehow I find the argument of "we know the gravity that hold the galaxy together is so and so, and we only should have such and such from visible matter, so there HAS to be dark matter we don't understand yet" not any more convincing as a "that's God's influence holding the universe together". Both lack a substantial amount of proof.