An annoyance with explaining creation

[galaxysponge]

I have found that when explaining creation among atheist beliefs, it's a lot harder to prove your points, because your trying to prove something. Meanwhile atheist belief is arguing to prove nothing. -That we all came to existence by the natural phenomenon of all physical things. So basically it's a lot harder to prove/argue something than to prove/argue nothing.

This sometimes annoys me but I just need to explain it better probably(any tips?) Anybody in the same boat??

[Phi for All]

The problem is with your understanding of science. Proof is for mathematics; science has only evidence. Science isn't looking to prove anything, but it's very good at figuring out what isn't a fact.

 

Scientists take an idea and test it, looking for evidence to both support and refute an idea. If there is much evidence to support the idea, it gets reviewed by even more scientists looking to both support and refute. If an idea has a great deal of evidence in support, and there are no refutations, it can go on to become a theory. Things like God or what happened at creation are not observable in a way that science considers supportive.

 

Also, there is a difference between creation and creationism, so that may be hindering your attempts. It's easy to imagine that everything had a beginning, a creation point. Creationism, however, is a set of beliefs that contradict empirical observation at virtually every point.

[iNow]

Except, that's not true. Atheists are simply saying that they find your argument to be unconvincing and uncompelling. Their basic position is that they see no good reason and no reasonable evidence to accept your claims as true. That is not equivalent to trying to "prove nothing." You may as well be saying that people who do not believe in the tooth fairy or who do not believe in unicorns are trying to "prove nothing."

 

Perhaps the main reason you find it so difficult to argue your side is because you're trying to support a position that is deeply and fundamentally flawed, baseless, and disconnected from reality.

 

~ Cross posted with Phi

[Keenidiot]

I have found that when explaining creation among atheist beliefs, it's a lot harder to prove your points, because your trying to prove something. Meanwhile atheist belief is arguing to prove nothing. -That we all came to existence by the natural phenomenon of all physical things.

That's not exactly proving nothing, is it?

[immortal]

I have found that when explaining creation among atheist beliefs, it's a lot harder to prove your points, because your trying to prove something. Meanwhile atheist belief is arguing to prove nothing. -That we all came to existence by the natural phenomenon of all physical things. So basically it's a lot harder to prove/argue something than to prove/argue nothing.

This sometimes annoys me but I just need to explain it better probably(any tips?) Anybody in the same boat??

 

Its because theists who come over here lack revelations and they just preach. If I was a theist I wouldn't preach things on a science forum or to atheists and start preaching things like "You need to look with in to find God", if you know where to find God then why don't theists go and get some real practical knowledge about God but they take the easy route of preaching because revelation is hard stuff.

 

So everything that a theist says sounds like a creation myth and there are lots of creation myths and if you want get some evidence for your creation myth you need to first have revelations as to how it was done, no one can observe how the big bang happened but that's not true of a creation myth, one can know how the creation happened, mind you it can be done, its just no one takes that route instead they just want to preach things and have blind faith and hence its quite easy for atheists to show the flaws in your arguments.