Anti-creationism is just as arrational as creationism

[DeltaEpsilon]

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

There are many definitions of arational, I am speaking about the definition used in logic (see my post above).

[PickelledEggs]

Who/What created the creator?

Extraordinary claims should be dismissed without supplemental extraordinary evidence. They shouldn't even be claimed unless there is enough evidence to back it up

[DeltaEpsilon]

Who/What created the creator?

Extraordinary claims should be dismissed without supplemental extraordinary evidence. They shouldn't even be claimed unless there is enough evidence to back it up

Many of the current scientific theories are just as illogical in that sense.

[PickelledEggs]

Many of the current scientific theories are just as illogical in that sense.

They only claim what they know and admit whatever missing parts there are. How is only claiming what you have evidence for illogical?

[Mike Cl]

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.

Delta, I might join you on the fence, for I do follow what you are saying.  Except for this part of your statement--'.....nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.'  I find not a single bit of evidence for creationism.  Just as I find no evidence for the unicorn, the Tooth Fairy (well, maybe a little for her), Santa Claus, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, the Genie (well, Barbara Eden--there is ample evidence for her), Bugs Bunny, etc.  I find the same evidence for all those and other fictional characters, that I must put a creator into that category--fiction.  And when evidence for any of them show up, I'll change my view on it then.

[stromboli]

Rational means not irrational.

Irrational means not rational.

Arational means neither rational OR irrational applies.

That is from a philosophy and logic website.

The point still remains that Creationism doesn't follow scientific method. Any one can make an assumption that something exists and then either find or invent evidence to "prove" it. Same as I said before. When you can prove creationism by using scientific method, be sure and tell us.

So fence sit until your panties are all in a bunch. Have fun.

[Hydra009]

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.

Title says creationism vs anti-creationism (evolution?).  Body says theism (apparently, Christianity) vs atheism.  Totally different concepts.  :/

[DeltaEpsilon]

Title says creationism vs anti-creationism (evolution?).  Body says theism (apparently, Christianity) vs atheism.  Totally different concepts.  :/

No. Anti-creationists believe that there is no creator.

[PickelledEggs]

No. Anti-creationists believe that there is no creator.

Well, when all the reasons someone has for believing that creator exists is contradicted by even the most simple of observations... it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the idea of a "creator" isn't something that's anchored in reality.

[aitm]

Creationism comes in many different flavors. You're making assumptions that are not necessarily correct.

Creationism assumes the creator has a need or a desire for creating. There is nothing that suggest the universe needs a creator. There is nothing that suggests a creator needs a universe. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests the believer needs a creator, and only in some branches that the creator needs the believer. Outside of those beliefs, nothing suggests a creator needs the created, but again, more importantly nothing suggests the universe needs a creator. "Believing" that a creator does not exist is not only the correct assumption but the logical default, for nothing outside of human construct suggests a creator.

[GSOgymrat]

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.

Is your point that you haven't decided whether there is or not a creator because you don't find convincing evidence for either?

[Hydra009]

No. Anti-creationists believe that there is no creator.

"Anti-creationists" (i.e. people who aren't creationists) are a ponderously large and theologically diverse bunch.  This might come as a shock, but there are people who acknowledge the fact of evolution and also believe in God.  So basically, your whole argument is predicated on false assumptions.

[Fickle]

Who/What created the creator?

There in lies the problem and if we cannot comprehend a boundless universe then there must always be a beginning and an end to things. If our mind determines it cannot just be then "a creator" or something else must have created it. We are then left with the notion that if nothing can ever just be then the "creator" must also have been created by something else. As such the creationist argument is a logical fallacy, an error in reasoning, because we must always create more imaginary things to create other things. Logically the argument must always produce an infinite number of creators each one having created the last one for infinity.

Logically this is why people become Atheists, lol.

Recently the Hubble Telescope pointed towards the darkest part of the sky named the "Deep Field" and captured the deepest image of the universe ever taken. It found ten's of thousands of galaxies each galaxy containing millions of stars. If every pin prick in the fabric of visible space devoid of light holds the same then where is the end?. The further we look the more we see thus the proof we have in hand suggests there is no end dispite what our mind may have us believe.

Personally I think creators were created in the minds of people who are afraid to think, people who must reject the facts and reality because in many cases science fact is stranger than fiction. It is just easier to believe a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days than contemplate the unknown because the unknown scares them to their very foundation.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If a creator exists, he certainly didn't create anything that Creationism would have him creating. Creationists, for instance, predict biological systems that cannot evolve by any conceivable evolutionary pathway. Problem? Every biological system proposed by creationists has turned out to have a possible evolutionary pathway, with ample evidence to establish that was the way it happened.

Evolution delivers the goods. Creationism doesn't. That is the difference, and it is the reason why evolution is more rational than creationism.

[Baruch]

DeltaEpsilon ... you are not using "create" in the same way as the other posters.  That is a problem with using a non-technical word, and a bad language like English that muddles concepts.  This happens with "science" when we read "Creationist" literature ... they are using "science" in the Medieval way ... meaning knowledge.  Everyone else is using "science" in the scientific method sense, particularly as it is understood post 1700 CE.

Perhaps we need a separate thread for those few of us who care about metaphysics (the supposed meaning behind the concepts we use).  In my metaphysics for example, it is unnecessary for time to have a beginning, it is also unnecessary for me to have a "theory of everything" in a scientific sense.  Aristotle's "four causes" gives me enough to chew on (it is in his "metaphysics").

Unfortunately, when we use words differently than others, we frequently just get into word definition contests ;-(  "Rational" is one of these bug-bear words too.  There are exact definitions we can use, if you agree to it ... but it might not convey your thought.  In my view, rationality is a tiny part of reality, and relatively not absolutely ... for me reality is irrational (not anti-rational though).  Reality is chaotic, particularly on the human level.  Valid logic is only found in toy situations, like chess or formal math.  The phrase "you are being irrational" is simply rhetoric, same as using "you are an atheist" is rhetorical ... it isn't about establishing truth, it is about dis-establishing reputation.