I don't think idiot-boy realizes that "atheism" technically means "believing in nothing" outside of hedonism and narcissism. Sound familiar? This is the "Anti Golden Rule" or the "creed of Belial" according to the Torah (e.g., the creed of the Anti-Messiah.....or Anti-Christ if you wish to use the Greek term for Belial).
It can be scientifically proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to approach life "believing in absolutely nothing" -- everybody has to have some "belief system"......"philosophy of life"......."faith in something", etc., because it is the only way we can exist as humans. This is often termed the "human condition". So the notion of "atheism", in a technical sense (e.g., absolute belief in nothing) is nonsense. The hardest question for the most intelligent Physicists in the world is tackling the question of why "intelligence" exists within the universe -- physicists can't even explain what "intelligence" is for that matter. Is it a form of energy? Or is it like light, appears to be energy but actually is a particle with mass - has to be one of the two, we know that from E=MC^2 (in reality, it isn't just intelligence that scientist can't explain - scientists still can't explain gravity or magnetism perfectly are they reactionary forces or a form of energy/mass). If you push Physics beyond its "human limits", it becomes "philosophy" -- e.g., the rules we understand, but those rules may be a small fraction of all the rules and we many not even understand those rules perfectly -- for instance, Einsteins "Local Reality" via the EPR Paradox, a central tenant of understanding our "local" physical world was recently proven likely to be an incorrect explanation of "spooky action at a distance" (e.g., entangled particles). Quantum Physics has pretty much proven that "entangled particles" are real and they communicate at speeds which exceed the speed of light meaning that Einstein's "Local Reality" (e.g., we can define everything locally via the speed of light because it is impossible to travel through the universe at a speed that exceeds the speed of light) could very likely be wrong.
According to Physics as we currently know it, the universe does not need "intelligence" to function; however, via "the rule of conservation" we know that "intelligence" would not exist unless it was needed and played some role within the universe -- it's a paradox....IOW, why does "intelligence" exist, what's it's role, etc...? Why in our own "Local Reality" do we always get the same answer in terms of "Physics" -- specifically, out of randomness comes order and that order even in our own solar system and galaxy always appears to "exist" to support life and "intelligence" because these things would not exist without "rules" that clearly create the "order".....IOW of the IOW, just because we don't understand the rules or even understand what role or why intelligence is necessary to the universe, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and that one very LOGICAL explanation is that "intelligence" may be the FINGERPRINT of the creator of the universe who knows all the rules and algorithms of the universe - doopy-brains here is terribly ignorant, belief in an all-knowing, "intelligence" and creator is as "elegant" an explanation as anything, perhaps a better explanation than others. Such a belief system (including the universe having absolute rules for "right" and "wrong" -- e.g., "morals") is not "anti-science" in the least because of the construct that if there were proof one way or the other, you would not need "faith" (faith is a simple word which also means "belief"...."creed"....."philosophy".....etc., it is a secular word despite wack-jobs wanting to ascribe religious connotations to it). If God could be proven, you wouldn't need faith because it would be a proven reality (e.g., you wouldn't need a "God-centric belief system", you would simply KNOW that the universe is God-centric). If you could prove that God did not exist, you wouldn't need a BELIEF SYSTEM which denies an "Intelligent Creator of the universe", but has utterly NO EXPLANATION for the inexplicable actions of the universe, especially the "orderliness out of randomness" nature of the universe that tends to act in a way to protect and promote "life" and "intelligence". Everybody has a "belief system", so God is a matter of "faith" or "creed", not science and belief in God is no more "anti-science" than not believing in God - and in many ways it may be more "scientific" in that it EXPLAINS many paradox's of the universe rather elegantly whereas "non-creationists" have no explanation whatsoever for the most fundamental of questions such as LIFE and INTELLIGENCE -- why do they exist if they are utterly UNNECESSARY for the functioning of the universe? This would be a massive contradiction of the Law of Conservation and that Law is a central tenant of science and is rather immutable.
