Warning its a long reading but a serious one, and i choose to be as logical as possible for easy understanding and healthy arguments
The point to understand is that the argument for the creator is not a scientific one but rather a rational one based upon understanding of "casue and effect" of limited things. For example, science as a branch of study, is limited in its scope, is time bound, deals only with tangible things and is not a method of enquiry that gives absolute certainties. It deals with 'how' the phenomena around us work, rather than a 'why' they work in the first place.
More importantly, the scientific method follows the process of induction where a particular reality is observed and experimented to form theories which are then generalized. That is, moving from specific to general. So, a typical scientific experiment would involve specifying a limited number of variables (e.g. Does variable 'x' affect variable 'y' ? Or how are variable 'x' and 'y' correlated ?) to experiment which can easily be isolated from many variables.
Another e.g, imagine conducting research on how business practices affect quality of restaurants in a given area (business practices as one variable and quality of restaurants in the area as another variable) this is too broad for scientific method to pinpoint the variables and tests. Instead, each variable would have to be narrowed down to something more specific, measurable, and testable such as observing total quality management philosophy in the food industry in the said area. Each of these variables would further have to be defined as to what constitutes its definition to make the experiment easier to test. Despite this, there would still be room for measurment and sampling bias, research, assumption in undertaking the study (which are at the discretion of the researchers) and the reliability and validity of generalizing and findings across a wider setting. Therefore, it will be hard not to come across conflicting findings from different studies hence making the scientific method relative and not conclusive which is the crux of the matter. The same applies to evolution, it may explain some realities, but the basis of its claim of being a fact is "inductive" which gives a value of accuracy above '0' and below '100' % as it recognizes room for error and generalization.
Using the principle of sufficient reason, and giving the laws of intelligent design and the theory of the clock master, and on the other hand the limits of science, the presence of an "Uncaused Cause" of the universe is imminent.
Let's take, for instance, question like what came before the 'Big Bang', which is actually beyond scientific method of enquiry as a judgement is required to answer what happened in the unseen past based on the limited variables observed today. And how such knowledge becomes more phylosophical and metaphysical rather than scientific as asking such question entails diving into matters of the unseen. Case in point, back in the 1960's the prevailing scientific 'fact' was that the universe was eternal (No beginning and No end). Then came the 'Big Bang Theory', which was held in high esteem for explaining how the universe actually began to exist until recently, where even big bang is seen as doubtful as it doesn't help explain other observable phenomena. This has led many to posit other theories for the origins of the universe.
This means that scientists can, at very best, only make educated guesses regarding the origins of the universe which are itself prone to errors or be later refuted by a new scientific theory or study in the future. Not to mention how scientific theory/study stands relative to each scientist's limited knowledge, experience, and angle. Causing this scientific discourse to become specualative rather than objective account of reality... A bit of a low blow for those who religiously claim that science will find the truth when they reject the case for the universe being cause by a creator. Therefore, science has a scope and should be used in its proper areas (medicine, technology, e.t.c). However, it has its limitations to its scope which makes it irrational to use for questions which are beyond the scientific method and it certainly has no place in answering or proving the existence of an unseen omnipotent creator that is beyond time and space. Guy
Well, what's puzzling about the thought process o atheists is that they claim to religiously stress the importance of scientific evidence for God, but at the same time say that god cannot be disproved.
Richard Dawkins also alludes that god cannot be disproved...
If the only proof that you require is that which can be scientifically proven and then whatever that cannot be proven outside the scope of science, then I can understand that it is more an issue of mockery. Because there are many things that lie outside the scope of science, the most basic being our own "consciousness". Can we physically see thoughts and weigh them? Can we prove thoughts exist emperically? We know thoughts exist and are real, simply because it is infered from our different emotional and intelectual states of mind.
So, the argument for a creator is not scientific one and nor does it define attributes like creation.