[asking]

There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:

1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.

2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.

3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.

I think, logically, this makes sense.

Creationists' default position is #1. (Actually this is their only position!).
In my many dealings with creationists I have realised that there are a number of reasons for this.

I think a lot of us do #1, not just creationists. I would not single them out.

Secondly, they accept atheists' arguments that if there is no need for God then God does not exist and so reject anything that appears to lessen the need for a God.

I certainly agree that this is an unsound argument. A thing's existence doesn't depend on whether someone or something needs it. I don't see why God should be any different. Though I am not a theologian.

Thirdly, they accept the logic of atheists' proofs of God's non existence and then argue the contrapositive instead of realising that the logic is false

Atheists' argument:-
If "__________is true" then "God does not exist".

This astonishes me. I have not seen any valid arguments anywhere ever that "prove" that God does not exist or even ones that purport to. I have not seen an atheist make this argument. As far as I know, there is no argument one can make that either proves God's existence or proves that God does not exist. Because rational arguments and science in particular operate only in the material world, not in the world of the supernatural.

Creationists' argument (contrapositive):-
"God exists", therefore "_________ is not true".

I agree. I have seen this. It makes no sense to me.

Fourthly, they seem to prefer supernatural explanations over natural explanations, forgetting that God is as much the God of the natural as He is of the supernatural.

I feel more comfortable with these kinds of arguments, but I think that's just because I like the natural world and related better to people who like and accept it as the wonder it is. Personally, it bothers me when its wonders are dismissed as unspiritual.

[arcura]

elscarta, Thanks for your thot on this.
It made me think.
And I do agree with much of what you said.
There is a logical argument for God's existence and also a philosophical one or three.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[I Newton]

You are confused with a beliefe that that began by an anglican priest in the 1600s and has been slamed by Atheists to be the only belief of creation.

My father's day was not just 24hrs. The day of the Hebrews weer not just 24hrs. A creation day is not just 24hrs.

Just look at the work that Adam had to perfrom on the sixth day, and then began to be lonely and God then made Eve. The work he did on the sixth day would be impossible for a man to do, at the very least, very imporobable.

So do not let the teachings of an Anglican priest and the jibes of Atheists make you think that the earth is just 6000 yrs old.

[arcura]

I Newton,
Thanks, I will not.
I do firmly think that the universe IS billions of years old.
Peace and kindness,
Fred