Anti-creationism is just as arrational as creationism

[DeltaEpsilon]

In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.

Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.

[Mermaid]

little evidence? Are you sure?

[Nonsensei]

In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.

Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.

Using your logic, it is irrational to suggest that unicorns do not exist merely because there is no evidence for their existence.

A creator does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of his existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Unicorns do not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of their existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Magic does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of its existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.

You talk about the irrationality of denying the existence of a creator, but you're the one using a different logical process when determining the existence of a universal creator than you would use on determining the existence of any other fictional thing - all for no apparent reason.

[DeltaEpsilon]

Using your logic, it is irrational to suggest that unicorns do not exist merely because there is no evidence for their existence.

A creator does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of his existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Unicorns do not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of their existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Magic does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of its existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.

You talk about the irrationality of denying the existence of a creator, but you're the one using a different logical process when determining the existence of a universal creator than you would use on determining the existence of any other fictional thing - all for no apparent reason.

No, not quite. First of all irrationality would be saying there is evidence for ¬P but believe P anyway. Arrationality is saying there is no evidence for P but believe P anyway for some proposition P.

I am saying that both propositions are equally arrational because there isn't a sufficient amount of evidence to completely rule out creationism, nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.

[GreatLife]

In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.

You forced me to look up a word - good job.  And since you misspelled that word, I will assume that you are not real familiar with it either.

So, arational means: not based on or governed by reason.

So I am confused how it is reasonable to ASSUME that there exists a creator in the absence of any evidence for one whatsoever?  A belief governed by reason - has to be one supported by evidence, IMO.  It seems neither rational or reasonable to simply assert the existence of a non-provable being or thing.  To borrow a phrase from a famous philosopher - I can assert that their is a china pot orbiting somewhere beyond Mars - and that it is small enough to escape detection from even our most powerful telescopes.  Do you find my assertion likely?  There is just as much evidence (not popular support - but that is a different metric) for my assertion as there is for yours.

Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.

You are quite wrong on this assertion.  Science has not debunked any gods.  What science has done is to limit the scope of what a god could or could not do.  In the process, the storyline for god keeps receding.  He is now some creature which has always existed - but is not real.  He is outside of space/time - yet interacts within it.  The earth has gone from its role as the central orbital hub - to just another planet orbiting a vanilla sun in a galaxy that looks just like billions of others.

God is begin defeated by science... but science is not in the business of defeating god.

[Mermaid]

No, not quite. First of all irrationality would be saying there is evidence for ¬P but believe P anyway. Arrationality is saying there is no evidence for P but believe P anyway for some proposition P.

I am saying that both propositions are equally arrational because there isn't a sufficient amount of evidence to completely rule out creationism, nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.

Hm. So probability is even for either scenario? I don't agree with that in the slightest. Scientific theory is never based on complete proof, it's based on probability.

[DeltaEpsilon]

Hm. So probability is even for either scenario? I don't agree with that in the slightest. Scientific theory is never based on complete proof, it's based on probability.

No. Science is based on empirical evidence and there is not a sufficient amount for both subsets of the dichotomy.

[Mermaid]

No. Science is based on empirical evidence and there is not a sufficient amount for both subsets of the dichotomy.

How can you conclude that there is not enough empirical evidence for evolution?

[aitm]

A creator MAY suggest that at some point, science was ignored and magic fixed the "problem". I hope you follow this, if a creator knew that he had to follow the "laws of science", or that he established the laws of science he was bound to them and everything would comply with those laws. However, to suggest a creator is also to imply, every so slightly, that at some point we may see a link that does not follow the laws which would hint at "magic".

If a creator exists that has complete indifference to us, then you would think the laws would be followed for it has no interest in leaving a "trail" for it has no interest in being worshipped as such. If a creator wished to be worshipped and known then there would be certain bits of evidence that would suggest the hand of "magic" would be involved.

I am unaware of any such contradictory "things" that suggest the only way they could be is by "magic". Everything suggests there is no NEED for a creator for the existence of the universe, and as such why would WE need a creator. We NEED a creator because we cannot answer the questions…yet. We NEED a creator because our fathers and mothers are dead and wouldn't it be nice to believe there was still something that was helping us?

Life for the vast majority of living things is a very frightening experience. I am grateful that for now, I get to experience life as a human, a long lived and happy human compared to the majority of humans, and far more than what the rest of the living creatures endure. But at some point, once my body ceases to live, the atoms will scurry about and attach themselves to something else. Perhaps a rat, a cast iron sewer pipe, a bullet, or a flower. This is as close to reincarnation I will "see" I suspect.

If a creator indeed created this for that very sake…it did a poor job.

[DeltaEpsilon]

You are quite wrong on this assertion.  Science has not debunked any gods.  What science has done is to limit the scope of what a god could or could not do.  In the process, the storyline for god keeps receding.  He is now some creature which has always existed - but is not real.  He is outside of space/time - yet interacts within it.  The earth has gone from its role as the central orbital hub - to just another planet orbiting a vanilla sun in a galaxy that looks just like billions of others.

God is begin defeated by science... but science is not in the business of defeating god.

You're right on that. It was wrong of me to use the word 'debunked'. There is a plethora of scientific evidence against the Christian god and the Bible asserts all sorts of erroneous things, so I wouldn't consider it reliable.

As for my misspelling of the word 'arational', I apologize. It is a word I use very infrequently the last time I used it was when I took a course in philosophy a few years back.

[Nonsensei]

Whether or not there is a sufficient amount is subjective, but what is not subjective is that there is a great deal more evidence that a creator does not exist than there is evidence that he does exist. There are reasonable, fact based theories regarding how the universe came into existence. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest that a creator was responsible.

You aren't going to get to any place logically sound using this method of argument.

[DeltaEpsilon]

"So I am confused how it is reasonable to ASSUME that there exists a creator in the absence of any evidence for one whatsoever?  A belief governed by reason - has to be one supported by evidence, IMO.  It seems neither rational or reasonable to simply assert the existence of a non-provable being or thing.  To borrow a phrase from a famous philosopher - I can assert that their is a china pot orbiting somewhere beyond Mars - and that it is small enough to escape detection from even our most powerful telescopes.  Do you find my assertion likely?  There is just as much evidence (not popular support - but that is a different metric) for my assertion as there is for yours."

No. I am not claiming it is reasonable to believe in creationism, it is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in creationism if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.

[DeltaEpsilon]

Whether or not there is a sufficient amount is subjective, but what is not subjective is that there is a great deal more evidence that a creator does not exist than there is evidence that he does exist. There are reasonable, fact based theories regarding how the universe came into existence. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest that a creator was responsible.

You aren't going to get to any place logically sound using this method of argument.

Yes but those fact based theories don't contradict all forms of creationism.

[DeltaEpsilon]

A creator MAY suggest that at some point, science was ignored and magic fixed the "problem". I hope you follow this, if a creator knew that he had to follow the "laws of science", or that he established the laws of science he was bound to them and everything would comply with those laws. However, to suggest a creator is also to imply, every so slightly, that at some point we may see a link that does not follow the laws which would hint at "magic".

If a creator exists that has complete indifference to us, then you would think the laws would be followed for it has no interest in leaving a "trail" for it has no interest in being worshipped as such. If a creator wished to be worshipped and known then there would be certain bits of evidence that would suggest the hand of "magic" would be involved.

I am unaware of any such contradictory "things" that suggest the only way they could be is by "magic". Everything suggests there is no NEED for a creator for the existence of the universe, and as such why would WE need a creator. We NEED a creator because we cannot answer the questions…yet. We NEED a creator because our fathers and mothers are dead and wouldn't it be nice to believe there was still something that was helping us?

Life for the vast majority of living things is a very frightening experience. I am grateful that for now, I get to experience life as a human, a long lived and happy human compared to the majority of humans, and far more than what the rest of the living creatures endure. But at some point, once my body ceases to live, the atoms will scurry about and attach themselves to something else. Perhaps a rat, a cast iron sewer pipe, a bullet, or a flower. This is as close to reincarnation I will "see" I suspect.

If a creator indeed created this for that very sake…it did a poor job.

Your argument is axiomatically flawed. Creationism comes in many different flavors. You're making assumptions that are not necessarily correct.

[stromboli]

Arational= not based on or governed by reason.

Irrational= not logical or reasonable.

Just to clarify. There is no evidence "a creator does not exist" because a complete lack of evidence by itself is not evidence. I think it would be more correct to say that the absence of any evidence would indicate the lack of any god (the Null Hypothesis)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

As to whether our or any argument against creationism is axiomatically flawed, you first of all are going to have to define which set of creationist beliefs you are referring to.

Scientific method:

Ask a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results.

Assuming your- or any- version meets that criteria, then maybe. The problem with Creationism is that you are drawing a conclusion (divine creation) and then looking for answers to prove your belief. That is not based on observation- it is based on a stated but not proven belief.