Summations Only

Human beings have all sorts of beliefs and the way in which they arrive at them varies from reasoned arguments and theories to blind faith. Some beliefs we feel we can justify and prove, some we feel simply as "gut feelings". Some of those we think we have proved beyond reasonable doubt, fall to pieces from time to time, it's all in the nature of our relationship with the mistery of the world.Imagine I was a die-hard creationist and I said to you that God planted everywhere faked evidence of an old earth to test your faith in him. I am sure creationists can find a proper verse from the Bible supporting this assertion. How would you prove that they are "deeply and fatally wrong"?PS. I am not a creationist, I am simply aiding their positions so that something similar to a "serious" debate can take place between evolution and religion. I believe it's an argument creationists could use against the "scientific method".

It's a bit of a stretch to think that a principle that holds at our level of existence for John, Michael and Lora, should be applicable to the Biblical God. If God created occam's razor, would his ways be subject to this rule as well? ...unless he wanted to test our faith in him by letting us denounce the Genesis in the Bible through out scientific research.Not that i believe any of this, but i can't currently think of a way to counter such an argument if it were presented. And i have to say it sounds a billion times more logical than claiming the dinosaur fossils were 4 thousand years old . But i am not going to argue over this and will let creos pick up from here.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Everybody knows what occam's razor is, Devil's Advocate. This isn't really a board for mentally retarded, so you don't need to explain that 2+2 equals 4.But you are most definitely wrong that a God must follow the path of least resistance. This is most definitely not how religions portray God. God in scripture is omni-powerful DA, you should focus your attention on that.

I think you'll have an answer to this question when you can explain why the nonsense spurred by atheists gets a different treatment to nonsense brought forth by creatinists. Why is a certain kind of nonsense somehow more acceptable than another?Maybe it will explain why you are sometimes treated as if you were an atheist.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Yes i could but i'd have to open up a new thread, as this is very offtopic here. If i open up a new thread, i'd be suspended for attacking the multitude of assumptions being made in most every thread. This has been changing lately and people are starting to get more tolerant towards the idea of some type of creator, I think this is rather obvious to everyone.

No, not all atheists put forth nonsense, at least not that often and not all the time. It's the tolereance that they get when they do, that gives the impression that you are an atheist.

Great, go ahead it was your idea, not mine. If i don't get suspended it would mean that i failed in my endeavour.