Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #119]

All atheists really have is Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil.

Re divine hiddenness, this would translate to such expression as given ... "What all atheists have is the total absence of evidence for God and gods" which theists seem to have no trouble in seeing, in the exact same evidence.

Re Problem of Evil, this is not based in atheism [which is just "lack of belief in Gods"] but is a very weak argument which atheists generally try to use to point out that if there is a creator-GOD, then the GOD would have to be evil to have created this real world and all its "horrors". [specifically]

Of course, the "problem" is concocted from that position of lack of beliefs in gods, and in some cases is claimed to be the reason some folk became "Atheists" because they lack belief on account that the world has horrors to contend with, which is not really "Atheism" at its root-description. "Why" is not really required, as there is no reason necessary, in order that folk simply lack belief in gods.

In that, the so-called problem of evil presents as a farse.

However, it is noted that the Problem of Evil is specific to the notion of an all powerful all loving all knowing omni-everything idea of GOD, and - biblically speaking, YHVH does not fit that description, so the curio therein is why atheists make a song and dance about YHVH as if YHVH fits the script which determines the validity of the Problem of Evil.

The first biblical example of YHVH not being all knowing, was in the Eden story, where YHVH has to ask the human pair for information on their whereabouts...a thing that many theists supporting the belief in said story, appear to overlook...so the source of the problem can be linked to theistic belief systems which do not acknowledge discrepancies and claim that YHVH is omni-everything...as if these type of believers are trying to superimpose an omni-everything image of GOD onto the image of YHVH as presented in the Bible...

So one can question the concept in light of it being a problem that theist created, and are hard pressed to defend/support...

So the battle rages on for those directly participating in it...

Yup.

The problem of evil would represent a particular version of a god, and not a god that's maybe yet to be considered.

If there's a loving god, an all good god, then by definition...

[Diogenes]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #121]

Yes, as you and William point out, the 'Problem of Evil' as usually stated involves the classic God whose apologists maintain is both omnipotent and good. Given the pain and suffering in the world, this problem is sometimes stated as:
"If God is good, he is not God,
If he is God, he is not good."

Scholastics and apologists have long and prodigiously argued for God's omnipotence; therefore, they cannot be heard to claim he is good. At best I suppose, they could argue 'He' is indifferent to suffering. That would directly conflict with scripture... as least as to God's 'chosen people.' All of this leaves us with the inescapable conclusion the God of the Bible is a tribal god, one of thousands. He just cares about 'HIS' favored tribe. This is in direct opposition to what Jesus and Paul claimed. There is no way out of this for apologists except to admit God has changed greatly AND cannot see the future.

Of course, apologists try various ineffective 'fixes' like 'The Fall' and Heaven as the means of ultimately rectifying the horrors and injustices suffered. Good luck with that.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #117]

Exactly! Just like there are always new arguments for leprechauns, but there are not new arguments against leprechauns.

Let's see if that is true. Show me some new arguments for leprechauns.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #118]

So then like I pointed out, you mean creationism in the first sense I mentioned, which few Christians hold to BTW.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #115, 116]

If you mean creation in general, then no. it is not in decline. Creation only means that God is the cause of the universe. God can cause it to be that the system evolves and life evolves, for example. That is still creation.

All atheists really have is Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil.

What all atheists have is the total absence of evidence for God and gods, along with no need to be fabulists ond simply make things up or engage in logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

One of the big problems for theists who hold that God is the 'cause' of the universe and merely put systems like evolution in place is that they sound more like deists.
If they want to assert the existence of a personal god who is active in the universe then they have to justify why such a god sits back and does nothing while a billions of years old cumbersome, inefficient, seemingly random process moves along at glacial speed causing pain, suffering, death, birth defects, disease, predation, and war. A personal god could have used his magic and created a beautiful and pleasant land instantly, not even needing six days plus one for resting.

No wonder the Young Earth Creationists work so hard to push their transparently ridiculous views.

I would like to challenge this. You claim they just use logical fallacies and circular reasoning. Can you go through the major arguments for God by philosophers and point out where opposing philosophers like agnostic or atheists philosophers call them fallacious or circular reasoning.

Let's start with William Lane Craigs Kalam argument.
Then we can go to Ed Feser's Aristotelean argument.
Then we can go to Platingas modal ontological argument (which is valid BTW)

And because you were not specific, let's go to Spinoza's argument for God.

[SacredBishop]

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?

Yes, I think it's time to throw in the towel with creationism. Nature only proves nature. Believers should stress faith and spirituality, and stop trying to force science to preach God, which it can't and won't.

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I think it's time to throw in the towel with creationism.

Yup. By now, it's mostly doing harm to the perception of one's faith.

Nature only proves nature. Believers should stress faith and spirituality, and stop trying to force science to preach God, which it can't and won't.

More than likely it'll be like other similar shifts, in that it won't be as much about changing minds as about replacing older generations with younger ones. It's effectively a dead debate now anyways (has been for a while now)....forums like this are pretty much just kicking the corpse.