Blogs

The short answer is 'laziness'. People categorise things, ideas, people etc. We categorize ideas as 'scientific', 'religious', 'western', 'materialistic', 'christian', 'mental stuffs', 'pseudo-science', 'Arabs', 'Jews' etc. Analysing and judging individual people or ideas is far more difficult cause there are myriads of them. It is much easier to try to figure out what group they belong and then judge them according the stereotypes associated with that group.

In debates, this fallacy works wonders. When the devil's advocate want to 'show something wrong with the idea', he doesn't opt to lead the lazy crowd to think through the idea. He opt to convince them that 'this is metaphysical' or 'this is religion' , 'this is physicalism' etc. Then the attention shift from the idea they haven't thought through into what they 'know' about religion, metaphysics etc. The results of the red herring is a misjudgement of an idea that actualy doesn't completely fit the category!

When it comes to 'creator', the extreme ends of the pendulum are:
1.)creator is there and everything is possible including unstopable objects hitting imovable walls
2.)we live in an entirely mechanical world reducable to blind jiggling balls.

This too much assumptions about a being we know almost nothing about is the major problem. Fact is that the universe show some evidence of an intelligent creator. However, we see no evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient etc being. But since most people consider only the two options, they end up rejecting 'creator' all together because they find the idea of omnipotent being unteanable.

But is 'omnis' realy what drive us to desire God? Nope! All we need is a being with great potential. Not one that can 'do everything' cause we don't need most of those 'everythings'.