Something that puzzles me about the Creationists:

[underlankers]

I've never understood the sense in how it is politically or socially viable to entertain the delusions of a group of people who really *are* stuck in a time-warp. The Creationist viewpoint is full of hoary old nostrums that Thomas Lyell and Charles Darwin debunked 150 years ago. The Creationist worldview is as follows: 6,000 years ago God created

Comments

[geezer_also]

Since a large portion of creationists believe in the gap theory, or something similar, I think you are using hyperbole to do your usual hatchet job on the tea party. No offense, particularly, but it is starting to get old.

[underlankers]

The elephant in the room being, of course that the Big Bang conflicts with Genesis in such a glaring way that if one accepts the Big Bang Bibliolatry is done for.

[geezer_also]

Nah, that's the beauty of the "gap theory" :D

[underlankers]

Religious view: God did it and created the Sun and Moon after the Earth.

Reality: The Sun existed before the Earth did, the Moon after it.

[yes_justice]

A. Religious viewpoint: God did it, yep, even the Big Bang

Aa: If so, then where did God come from? Does God have a navel?

The problem being that proving God doesn't exist is simply impossible

Proving any negative is impossible. What can you prove doesn't exist?

[essius]

The problem being that proving God doesn't exist is simply impossible, just like proving he/she/it exists is equally impossible

It is, in principle, possible to prove that God doesn't exist. If God is necessarily omnipotent and omnipotence is necessarily uninstantiable, then necessarily God does not exist. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and such properties are incompatible with the amount of evil there is in the world, then God does not exist. And so on. There is also nothing militating against the possibility of a proof for God's existence. If, for instance, the metaphysical structure of finite being is such that it requires a cause, then positing an infinite Creator may be perfectly legitimate.

Matters of faith simply cannot be argued away.

Depends on the faith. For example, decisive arguments can be given against Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, and even Islam.

[a_new_machine]

But then they wouldn't be creationists in the sense used here. They'd at most simply be, I dunno, your general theists. But we have an alternate viable theory of the origin of the universe and life, so creationism doesn't work even in the gaps.

Meh

[geezer_also]

If that was the point of his screed, it is an argument, however, see my original remark, and *I555I* above.
"But we have an alternate viable theory of the origin of the universe and life".......the bottom line, however, is "first cause", Intelligent design or Random chance?

Re: Meh

[yes_justice]

Intelligent design only begs the question where did the designer come from...

Re: Meh

[geezer_also]

Everything kind of begs the question of first cause.
Seriously, if matter just 'was' why not God?

Re: Meh

[yes_justice]

Why not god? Because its another man made story would be my strongest suspicion. I need a REASON to believe in something, not just cause I want to.

Re: Meh

[geezer_also]

Which is cool.

My point is where did matter come from, or energy, or whatever; is just as nebulous as where did God come from......so ya kinda pays yer money and takes your choice :D

Re: Meh

[yes_justice]

Asserting God has greater implications.

Re: Meh

[geezer_also]

Not trying to seem dense, but I'm not sure how.
Personally I can understand, after all if I believe in a god; theoretically I need to live to the standards I perceive he has set.

If I believe in God, and have no power to assert my beliefs over you, there are no greater implications to you.

Granting people have had power to impose upon people in the name of god or God, and if this is what you mean, then I do understand and am not as dense as I think I am at times. However, if this is what you are getting at, the same argument could be used against a non-believer who has power, like Mao or Stalin.