Why don't young earth creationists believe in God?

Agree2Disagree
Not sure but I believe you don't clearly understand what I'm saying here.....I never once said science was relevant to the young earth creationist....I simply said that it SEEMS that science is on the offensive to deny the existence of a creator entity...which from any way you look at it, concerning origins that is...it would SEEM as such....simply because science HAS TO EXCLUDE ANY SUPERNATURAL CAUSES.....This means they HAVE TO LEAVE OUT GOD. This automatically puts YEC's on the defensive to defend their own conclusions and beliefs....

Clarified rather well. Apologies, my mistake.

Though it is mostly for scientists and educators involved in the teaching and understanding of science, that creationism is in any way relevant. Unless a creationist paper happens to slip through review in one of the lesser standard journals. Science doesn't have to exclude anything. If it found genuine indications that a creator exists and did in fact create it all, or if it found any "supernatural" claims about anything that could be verified, it wouldn't overlook them. It would be quite the opposite.

And again, I never claimed the "supernatural cause" for the big bang to be a creator entity...You took that for granted and imposed that belief system upon me....I am simply saying that any CAUSE for the big bang would be SUPERNATURAL which means it would never occur naturally....This doesn't imply a creator...It simply implies a break in the laws of our current understanding of physics....

Then perhaps you should have clarified your narrower definition of the word "supernatural" as simply another word for that which isn't yet understood, excluding things like magic, miracles, deities, divine intervention and the like (which it does normally encompass). At any rate it seems very likely that it did happen "naturally". At least there are 0 reasons to suggest a "supernatural" force/being exists in the first place (ie. in the divine power, miracle, magic sense) simply because we don't understand something. That is simply "(insert supernatural being/cause here) of the gaps". In similar way disease, earthquakes etc were ascribed "supernatural" causes at one time, until we began to understand it.

If you are saying we don't yet understand fully, I agree. If you are ascribing things to the supernatural, that needs clarifying.

Not once did I mention a creator or magic...Not once did I intend to imply them....

So in a thread dedicated solely to YEC'ists who wholeheartedly believe that god created the earth sometime in (relatively) recent history, in which you state our beginnings have only one possibility ie. the supernatural, this doesn't imply a creator? Not sure I buy that.

As for your question "are black holes supernatural" no because they exist NATURALLY....we have no reason to believe that they SHOULDN'T exist naturally...Hope this clarifies.

Aren't they considered to have "singularities", that you feel can only be supernatural events? How do you distinguish which "singularities" might be natural v supernatural?

(By the way, your hostility is disgusting. My opinion and explanations are just as valid as anyone else's....The OP asked a question, I answered it with my humble opinion....I AM entitled to an opinion aren't I?)

A2D

Sorry you feel that way. You are entitled to your opinion. If you offer it, I am also entitled to review it. I don't see anything in my post that was personally directed to you (much less in a derogatory way), nor any irrelevance or ad hominem arguments, or anything directly offensive. If you can point it out, I will happily consider it and edit it with apologies if necessary. While offense can be taken at disagreement, that doesn't necessarily equal an offensive post.

Perhaps the following will help you understand how such confusion (if indeed there was) could come about.

su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\ : unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

Full Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

www.merriam-webster.com...

su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l) adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

supernatural (ˌsuːpəˈnætʃrəl ; -ˈnætʃərəl)
Definitions
adjective
1: of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2: characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3: of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

www.collinsdictionary.com...

rangerdanger
I grew up in a creationist home, and went to religious school. I'm a hardcore atheist now, but I still remember everything I learned.
When at school the issue of creation, and science came up a lot. We were told lots of different things regarding science like "Scientists have doubts, if they had faith, they wouldn't need science." I remember my brother asked about Carbon Dating (Since we were being taught the world was only like 2000 years old or something) and they told him that science like that was the "devil's" work. Basically faith trumps all is the attitude.
When I turned 13 I begged my parents to let me go to public school, and haven't looked back since.
It's all about doubts. I was taught doubts were bad, and doubting "god" and his words was considered almost blasphemy.
Most people don't think about it selfishly, they don't think about it at all. They just reiterate what the church told them.

edit on 15-10-2013 by rangerdanger because: more info

I find your account ASTONISHING...it mirrors pretty much what I think for some time already.

What "use" has it if a faith needs certain beliefs which go against any common sense or established science? WHY MUST a faith have at its foundation absurd beliefs such as the "young earth" theory? Is this required "to believe in God"? Do I need to believe in silly stories because otherwise I am "godless"?

Those people who believe in those abstruse things limit themselves AND their faith. They limit themselves in such a way that any common thinking or acceptance of science is AUTOMATICALLY "against their faith"...they limit themselves that one only has two choices: A) believing in things which make no sense, 100% and without question B) accepting other explanations but then departing the faith as a logical result ONCE IT BECOMES CLEAR that things like the young earth theory etc. can simply not hold.

If they (your family) had had a more lax belief with less dogmatic ideas, with MORE freedom in individual interpretation..they would have likely not turned you into an atheist.

The concept that public school or simply a normal urge to learn is seen as "against faith"...is just beyond me. A religion cannot be "right" if attending a public school is actually endangering it, or when all it takes is, say, a fossil which would pose a "danger" to the foundations of such a faith.

I myself am not an atheist, rather a (spiritually inclined) agnostic....I don't automatically exclude the idea of a creator...but rest assured that any scientific discovery or a thirst for knowledge shall IN NO WAY influence what I actually *believe*. A faith must include and encompass THE WORLD, THE REALITY..and not be a system "in its own" which is OPPOSED to everything else. Absurdity to the max.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


I understand your confusion as to the definition of supernatural...however I DID provide the definition that I intended to be used...

As for black holes and singularities...the discussion is really tiresome. Black hole singularities or more commonly referred to as curvature singularities are only hypothetical at the time being. Yes, general relativity predicts that inside a black hole is a curvature singularity however, that's assuming we throw what little we know of quantum mechanics out the window. Also hypothetical "black hole singularities" are also intrinsically different than the predicted big bang singularity....

I mean it isn't necessarily true, but any time I see scientists mention "singularity" I will instinctively assume that they're just putting that there to fill in the gaps of the puzzle...Much like a god of the gaps fallacy...We have science trying to fill the gaps with hypothetical situations. Not that this is bad at all, it just indicates that we don't know so we kind of fill in the blanks with our best guess....but that still doesn't solve anything, and oddly enough, it makes things somewhat more difficult....

In fact, I know of a particular mathematical formula which predicts a "singularity". We all have seen a drain vortex right? drain vortex

Well, what you probably don't know is that the mathematical formula behind those forces actually predicts that the water should be moving infinitely fast right over the drain....but what happens? The vortex forms and NO WATER is over the drain.....That's not infinitely fast...that's just NOT THERE. Not a singularity...a predicted singularity that we can't observe...damn so close right?

Something isn't right with our physics...or singularities cannot exist naturally(which is what scientists have generally began to realize as they move from the big bang model to other models that don't factor down to a "singularity")....It's your choice. To me quantum mechanics nailed the coffin closed on singularities because it's only LOGICAL that particles cannot inhabit a space smaller than their own wavelengths, unless of course they're SUPERNATURAL particles

A2D

and just to add a few words about other origin models...

brane cosmology(cyclical universe) has zero empirical evidence and almost all theories including brane cosmology and/or the inclusion of large extra dimensions are severely limited due to experiments with the LHC.

and

infinite inflation models (parent universe, multiverse) have at the moment only one thing going for them....which is that the universe does not seem to be expanding perfectly symmetrical....but most physicists will tell you this isn't as promising as it seems....because that would imply that the laws of physics themselves are not uniform throughout the entirety of the universe....which gives a whole new meaning to the word SUPERNATURAL.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


I think the six days are literal and more time was involved. But I don't know, and I don't care. But I laugh loudly when evolution is brought up. People believe it like it's real, when it only a theory, requires more faith than any Christian and actually means (look at yourself in a mirror) you came from a single microbe that magically appeared after a molten planet cooled after it assembled in space after a big explosion of nothing from nothing all on it's own at a point in time....no wait time didn't exist before then did it!

I prefer to believe in a power that lives outside our time and space. That requires less faith and is more rational even if faith is actually it's primary basis. It just makes more sense to the mind.

Neither evolution or creation can be proved by a human being. Both requires faith. Evolution requires much much more faith in my view.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


I am a Creationist and also believe in God, I believe the earth was created in six days as described in the Bible. What those six "days" actually were is up to interpretation in my opinion, as it may have been actual six earth days as we know them, or several thousand years. So go ahead and get your laugh in at me for being a "village idiot."

Now its my turn to laugh. Lets ask the basic questions that even a child knows to ask, something science shouldn't be afraid of; Why? How do you believe the earth was created, why? And how was that system(s) created, why? And keep going down this simple question of why and it will be revealed that your belief in the fairy tale called "modern science" requires as much faith or more as my belief in creationism does. Sounds like were boths idiots in the same village.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


(Science actually supports a young earth. Science supports humans and dinosaurs inhabiting the earth at the same time. Science has disproved evolution.) Some people believe these things. Some people believe what you say. My problem with the whole situation is that people that believe like you constantly attack and degrade people who believe the opposite. I do not find that coming from the people with the opposing opinion. Typically those type actions come from people who feel inadequate or insecure. (With themselves> in this case with your beliefs) Is that a fair assessment? Deep down do you really believe, or are you trying to convince yourself?

MarsIsRed
I don't believe in God, but my understanding of the Abrahamic religions suggest that God is infinite - infinite in power, and infinite in knowledge and wisdom to guide that power.

Thoughts?

infinite...

The Importance of Pi
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RldHTtd3O8
www.youtube.com...


A Night of Numbers - Phi's The Limit
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-ZiqDvnKo
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MadMax9

I think the six days are literal and more time was involved. But I don't know, and I don't care. But I laugh loudly when evolution is brought up.

Six days are literal and more time was involved? This does not make sense, you can't have it both ways.
What's so funny about evolution? Please explain.

People believe it like it's real, when it only a theory, requires more faith than any Christian

People do not need faith to understand evolution, it's an observational fact.
look up the definition of a scientific theory, you are confused about it's meaning.
Faith requires belief in unevidenced things like magic sky daddy's and talking snakes. Science requires evidence, science and faith are complete opposites.

and actually means (look at yourself in a mirror) you came from a single microbe that magically appeared after a molten planet cooled after it assembled in space after a big explosion of nothing from nothing all on it's own at a point in time....no wait time didn't exist before then did it!

There is no magic required for complex chemical reactions to spontaneously occur.
Evolution does not explain the beginning of time or life itself. You need to look into cosmology and abiogenesis if you want investigate current science in these matters.

I prefer to believe in a power that lives outside our time and space. That requires less faith and is more rational even if faith is actually it's primary basis. It just makes more sense to the mind.

Ironically your building a case against a god or power. If anything is outside our time and space, i.e. the universe, by definition it does not exist. You are also ignoring the massive conundrum, who are what created your god, a super god? and what created the super god, and what created the super super god infinitum.
God did it -is not an answer, even if the Bible were all true and god actually exists. It still doesn't answer how and that is the important part.
I'll just ask you for one thing god did - Explain how god made an atom?

Neither evolution or creation can be proved by a human being. Both requires faith. Evolution requires much much more faith in my view.

You are confused about the meaning of faith.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust or belief. In religion, faith often involves accepting claims about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. While some have argued that faith is opposed to reason, proponents of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence.

Again Evolution does not require faith, evolution has evidence.

MadMax9
Neither evolution or creation can be proved by a human being. Both requires faith. Evolution requires much much more faith in my view.

All I need to prove evolution is a shovel and a suitable place to dig out some fossils. Alternatively, I can also spend some time in a museum or library. The evidence that evolution takes place is OVERWHELMING. Believing in design (and this is the frightening part) actually requires to willingly deny and reject and to ignore the evidence, you must willingly close your eyes and deny REALITY just that your belief can be up-held. And if a belief (ANY belief!) stands on so weak pillars that it requires denying the obvious...this is pretty sad. A good faith/belief must go in harmony with what we know and what we discover, not AGAINST it. What does it tell about a faith if all it takes is a dinosaur bone to disprove essential parts of it as not correct? What does it tell about a belief that is threatened in its core by a simple fossil or a bone?

MarsIsRed
I don't believe in God, but my understanding of the Abrahamic religions suggest that God is infinite - infinite in power, and infinite in knowledge and wisdom to guide that power.

Clearly, young earth creationists don't believe in that God; instead they choose to believe in 'pocket god', a god who's ability to create is aligned precisely to the creationists ability to comprehend.

All popular religious notions of god seem anthropomorphic. Few more so than christianity.

Indoctrination can be a powerful tool.

Also, I understand from friends and family that the Christian Bible, like other religious texts, is meant to be a complex collection of teachings that must be unravelled in order to understand the message. Yet young earth creationists seem to read it as a 'religion for dummies' type book, where everything is spelt out in a literal and simplistic way.

I have doubts that too many of them really study the bible per se, as much as focus on the parts that might reinforce their belief while ignoring other parts. How someone could take any of it literally is a bit mind boggling, until we take into account the effects indoctrination can have.

Thankfully most of the modern world is becoming more secular, with religious mythology relegated to a simple cultural inheritance. Strangely there are still first world countries who cling to religion, with the resulting negative societal effects common to less developed and literate parts of the world.

Here's my question. If science's goal is simply to understand and explain (and of course exploit) the mechanics of the universe in which we live, why do young earth creationists so vehemently reject everything it shows to be true.

All bible based christianity (and many other religions) requires the prolonged suspension of disbelief to more or less extent, to accommodate fantasy. Which is why there seem so many variations on a theme, reflecting the extent of credulity, or the extent that fantasy can be accepted.

Walking on water, virgin births, various miracles. None of this is such a leap of logic away from creationism.

The pseudo science (or more accurately, anti-science, in some instances) used by the fervent takes many forms, both subtle and overt. It isn't so much that YEC are the deluded amongst the religious. Generally, we are only talking about the extent.

honested3
reply to post by MarsIsRed

 

I am a Creationist and also believe in God, I believe the earth was created in six days as described in the Bible. "

That's my point!!!

Why believe in that provable nonsense?

Apologies for not coming back sooner... but #ing work, as always, got in the way!

Im disapointed in this thread. I hoped for more... but obviously it wasn't comeing

Found this:

Green Text emphasis.

2 Peter 3 KJV

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Thought it was interesting and related to the topic.