As a scientist and searcher of truth, I simply find it much more rational to believe that there is an intelligent creator that has always existed and will never have a scientific explanation for his existence, than to believe in multiple universes, which continues to beg the question of how they came into existence. I see an mysterious particle called Photon hitting an intricate object with multicolored cellophane like wings, which then translates through a series of amazing chemical and neurosynaptic firings in my gray matter, finally reaching my consciousness (where that exists no one knows!) and I recognize through another amazing factor called "memory" (again, a mystery of bio-neurochemistry) this thing called a butterfly.
I've always admired my Dad's sense of awe and wonder for the world, and I know I've inherited that sense. Light (or any electromagnetic energy for that matter) is a mysterious thing. How can it be a particle and a wave at the same time? I still haven't wrapped my head around that. An insect's wings are indeed intricate. The process of our eyes absorbing light and sending chemical signals to our brain is also quite amazing.
The fact that we find awe in nature is by no means objective, however. Ever hear the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? The awe that we feel comes from that grey matter in our skulls, and is entirely subjective. Why should we use these feelings of awe to derive any objective conclusions?
Again, I find it a stretch to think that given enough time, with no intelligent Creator or creative force or the "Supreme Something with massive intelligence", that a particle of matter exploded into being from NOTHING about 13.7 billion years ago and that I'm an accidental byproduct. Can I prove God? No. But we also can't prove what causes gravity!
To prove something means to convince someone of an idea by demonstrating it's truthfulness using the evidence at hand. There is not enough evidence to demonstrate that God exists, therefore I am not convinced. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that gravity exists, and it has been demonstrated by science throughout history, therefore I am convinced that it exists. We may not yet know for certain the cause of gravity, but even Einstein had theories on what causes it. Science is currently working to find evidence for the cause of gravity (look up quantum field theory), so one might want to think twice before they say it cannot be proven.
There are, however, many, many mysteries about our universe that science has not yet solved. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that a "higher mind" was behind it. Let's go back in time a few thousand years. Let's say we were having a conversation about the wind. You would say, no-one can explain where this wind comes from -- therefore someone with more intelligence than I must be causing the wind. If I were a skeptic back then, I would say, "How can you make such a conclusion when you have no evidence that supports it?". If we then time-traveled to present-day I would show you textbooks that show the precise weather patterns of the earth, which are explained by the properties of the earth's atmosphere and variations in air pressure. You would then say, "Ah, but how can you explain the mystery of light!?". I'm willing to bet if we time traveled a few thousand years in the future, we may find some pretty surprising explanations to the things we can't currently explain.
The point is, as I said in my last email, why isn't it enough to just say "I don't know"? If I need an explanation for everything at any given point in time, I would have to make some false assertions about the things I don't yet understand. And because I care that what I believe is true, I choose to just say "I don't know", and I'm OK with that.