Just to think of the depth of the problem, suppose for a moment that I make the following argument. The universe did not exist until a moment ago. It was just created out of thin air by some deity, with all the evidence planted. You can argue as much as you want, but there is really no way that you can prove that this conjecture is wrong.

The problem of course is that accepting that conjecture would mean that you could never look at the world as having any rules. The sun might go out tomorrow. So it is an utterly useless way of looking at the world. So I wonder if an good argument against a creationist is not that they are wrong, but rather that for our purposes, i.e. learning about the world to discover rules or principles, it is not a useful way of thinking about things. If some god can stop the earth in its tracks, then there is no need to study orbital mechanics or to try to figure out how gravity works.

__________________
As above, so below