Well, assuming that there is a creator for a moment, what if our feeble human minds weren't meant to fully understand it all?
I would agree, the idea that we could even begin to comprehend something capable of creating the universe is insane (which is part of why I prefer agnosticism to religion. Agnostics often are not "wishy washy", many believe extremely strongly in a higher power, but recognise that the likelihood of any current religion coming even close to the mark is extremely low. As such, they keep their faith, without the dogma).
But also, if you replace "meant to" with "capable of" in your statement, it also applies to both relativity and quantum physics. There's a good reason we cannot comprehend these concepts fully (anyone who says they can has missed something BIG!). Having to understand the extremely tiny, extremely massive, and the extremely fast, these were not things that we had any chance of observing, nor needing to observe during our evolution. This is why we cannot fully wrap our heads around them, they're just outside our "programming".
Not picking on science at all here, but we're constantly proving previous "scientific facts" wrong.
Most of the time we're not actually, we're more finding that they're incomplete. Thought an atom was a ball? Nice step, but let's look at electrons, proton and neutrons. Still incomplete (still not wrong though!), let's bring in quarks. Not deep enough for you? String theory's the stuff. That seems to be as deep as the rabit hole goes... for now.
Religions are also constantly being proven wrong. Sun going around Earth (part science of course, but I consider religion to be partially an early branch of science...
an attempt to understand. Both have that, they just have different aproaches), wrong. Earth being a few thousand years old? Wrong. The list goes on and on.
I'll say the same thing in defense of religion as science. Being wrong about ONE thing doesn't make you wrong about EVERYTHING.
A religion might be wrong about the age of the universe, then right about there being a creator in some shape or form (potentially). And atheists (let's not say "science" in these discussions, as if it were "faith vs science" when it's really "faith in supernatural vs atheism". It's insulting to religious people in my opinion, it makes it sound like religion cannot be reconciled with science, which it can! Not that you intended insult there though!) might be wrong about the exact age of the universe too, but right about there being no creator.
Since you've brought up physics...
What's the difference between wave theory and prayer?
While people of faith may say "I'll be praying for you" when someone's ill or struggling, an atheist may say "I'll be sending my thoughts your way." What's the difference?
The difference is that a person of faith is saying "I am sending a request to a higher power to do what's right for you" but an atheist is saying "my sympathies, I feel deeply for you" with no expectation of results coming from that sympathy (not saying that people of faith always expect results to their prayers at all, just that that's what a prayer is in that context, a request for help).
That "wave theory" (gross mis-use of "theory" here from a scientific perspective, but we'll run with it as it makes sense in context) part of it is something that maybe 0.0000001% of atheists would buy into having any effect at all. Expecting results out of "sending thoughts your way" is more something someone of some new-aged belief would believe in (not slamming them, just saying almost zero athiests would believe in this).
ccasion14:
