I need an answer

As a child of 12 years of catholic school, and a science enthusiasts I have been torn by the argument for as long as I can remember. Now from the reading and documentaries I've come across, I have simplified the 2 sides down to this: ​ Evolution: Here's our proof, here's what we know so far, there's a few holes, but we're working on it. ​ Creation: There's too many holes in evolution, it must be creation. so the creationism theory says "Evolution isn't all correct, so it must be this" without giving me as much proof as evolution has.

I actually think the problem with creationism is even worse. All humans have evidence that the natural world exists. Believing that any supernatural entity exists in addition to that should require additional evidence. So even if there were no evidence for EITHER side, I still think it’s more logical to lean towards believing that there’s a natural explanation until such a time when there’s sufficient evidence to believe that the supernatural exists.

It's a vicious cycle really. I have already questioned and eventually denied almost everything in that book because of rational thought, which soon I'm afraid will cause me to deny the entire book, then deny the existence of God or a god. to the atheist this doesn't matter, but when you go further it means there is no reason, short of self preservation, to obey any sort of morals. It's kind of depressing really.

I can understand some reasons why ppl would want a God to exist, but I don’t understand the morality thing. I guess I’ve always seen morality as intrinsic by definition. Once you are moral for an extrinsic reason, then it’s no longer morality. It’s either self interest or mindless obedience. The fact that there are no reasons to be moral (outside of psychological/ biological ones) is kind of the whole point. It's something you choose to do because you want to do it. Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.

if you can't prove that something does not exist, you don't have to accept that it does, but, to me at least, you have to accept that there is a REMOTE possibility

I accept that as well. The only thing we can know with absolute certainty is that we exist, as well as perhaps some mathematical and philosophical concepts. Everything else we believe about objective reality comes from evidence and our memories (our mental storage of evidence), and since there could be technological or supernatural ways to falsify either evidence or memories, we can never know for certain that they’re accurate.However, having said that, we don’t believe in things because they’re possible; we believe in them because of evidence. For all you know, it’s POSSIBLE that I’m God and I created the universe two minutes ago. I made it with the appearance of age, including all living things, and gave you detailed memories of an older life. Being all powerful and all knowing, I created everything EXACTLY as it would be if it was billions of years old, down to the very last detail. Now, can you prove that this didn’t happen? No, you can’t. But I’m guessing you also don’t believe it happened.Perhaps Loki, the Norse God of mischief, framed OJ Simpson for the murder of his wife using his supernatural powers or perhaps we’re all in the Matrix right now. I could list off a near infinite number of things that you can’t disprove, but which you don’t believe in. We humans base our beliefs on evidence because it’s the only tool we have to figure out what’s real out of that near infinite number of possibilities, and because it appears to work.So to sum it up-1) There are very few things we can rule out with absolute certainty.2) Nonetheless, we base our beliefs on evidence.So if a Christian told me; The evidence points to an old earth, but I believe in a young earth anyway, my first question would be why, since everyone bases the vast majority of their beliefs on evidence, would they make a special exception when it comes to their religious beliefs? My methodology for determining what is real is consistent, while theirs is not.

so my conclusion is that I am agnostic

Traditionally, atheist is defined this way-Atheist- doesn’t believe in God
Agnostic- not sure
Theist- believes in GodHowever, those definitions are very imprecise. I prefer these ones. They treat one’s position on Gnosticism (knowledge) as a separate category from theism (belief).Agnostic (weak) atheist- doesn’t believe in God but doesn’t know with absolute certainty.
Gnostic (strong) atheist- doesn’t believe in God and knows with absolute certainty.Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.