User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-257949-20100705194423

We're all entitled to beliefs, and I feel that the fact that explaining the religious perspective of the history of the world through science is better than simply dismissing it outright. But then again I always view these ideas with an air of uncertainty.

I fancy myself as somewhat of a sci-fi writer, so therefore my concepts must be grounded in fact. If I were explaining how to build a time machine or a faster-than-light propulsion system I would not invent the science but try to twist current understandings to fit the context. I see the same thing with the 'creationism with science': it makes sense, but it requires a considerable stretch of how prepared one is to view the universe.

I once came across an article trying to justify the Deluge through scientific means. It was clearly well thought-out and was internally consistent, but the fact was it made no sense at all if one went solely by modern understanding of geology, tectonics, etc. It used these principles in the same way I would use my basic understanding of quantum theory to create a passable proposal for a working time machine.

It all comes back to Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is mostly likely the truest. This is most obvious with the simple idea: if God created Mankind, Earth and the Universe, why did he do it in such a way that their existences could be explained with no divine intervention whatsoever?