My last post was designed to be a little provocative, although I suppose I stand by it. My wording hopefully made it quite clear that there is no God other than in the minds of those who believe.
Ignoring the usual Descartes reply to that, (which is a circular argument anyway,) I was quite rightly classed as somebody who knocks religion rather than debate it.
Sorry, but I cannot see how else to express my views? To debate is to accept the possibility that the other guy has a point. But when the other guy brings his imaginary friend to the debate, try as much I can to be civil, I am still left with the feeling that I am humouring irrational thoughts. As I am not a psychiatrist, I don't feel equipped to do that.
So, I am left with just stating, as much as some may not like it, that the Emperor has no clothes. Debate over young earth creationism is no different to any other creationism, or indeed intelligent design.
if there was intelligent design, then we have not yet worked out the ins and outs of it. I suspect it does not have a big white beard or had a son, (even if I were religious, I would have issues with that one, or three to be precise.)
Einstein said that the answer cannot be bound in aethiest means either, as that would mean chaos and the rules of physics seem to hold at all times, albeit we are still tweaking such laws. So clearly chaos isn't the answer.
Mind you, probability arising from the chaos is a bit more like it. I have no problem with accepting the probability of that describing the status quo.
But don't expect me to thank it for the good bits, absolve it from blame for the bad bits and worship it once a week with an inane smile on my face.