The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit

[remez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a supreme being, and that God must be the source of logic and morals.^[1] A version was formulated by Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God and most contemporary formulations of the transcendental argument have been developed within the framework of Christian presuppositional apologetics.

TAG and presuppositionalism have been around in some form or another for years. Descartes in his letters to Mesennes states the proposition God creates the metaphysical necessities and laws of natures. To ignore all of this is wrong.

I'm not ignoring it. I commented that not all theists are presuppositionalists. Personally I disagree with that approach to apologetics.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Large numbers of American religionists are fundamentalists and biblical literalists. God made the Universe from nothing de novo. Very few would agree the Universe existed prior to God's existence, or apart from God's existence, not dependent on God. Presuppositionalism and TAG is built into that species of religion. Sure we can find a few Mormons, Process theology adherents, and so on, but the entire Christian literalist evangelical type religion supported by large numbers of Americans, (and others) do believe in the concept of a transcendental God wh creates all and is not reliant on any type of naturalism.


Arguing that not all Christians believe in these concepts is true, but is quibbling. This is all valid for most religious Christians, despite the fact that not everyone is a Christian, for example, some people are Scientologists.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

William Craig Lane

For example, if we do think that objective moral values exist, then we shall be led logically to the conclusion that God exists. And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. The reasoning of Ruse is at worst a text-book example of the genetic fallacy and at best only proves that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm. The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior—they are moral abominations. As Ruse himself states, “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5.”13 By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly. Thus, the existence of objective moral values serves to demonstrate the existence of God.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god#ixzz4WdR7YYr7
​

You seem to be offering up a refutation of a counter to his argument as the argument itself.
His refutation is not the argument. The MA says nothing about science whatsoever.

WCL states clearly that morality proves God's existence. You asked for an example of an apologist doing exactly that and I gave you one. WCL is a well known apologist has long been battling religious skepticism. You got what you asked for.

 

[bigfield]

As I laid out in the OP, religion offers only empty, useless answers that explain nothing.

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

 

[Lion IRC]

I think it would be phenomenal if turbo jets popped into existence without the assistance of design/causation. That would be spooky.

 

[bilby]

I think it would be phenomenal if turbo jets popped into existence without the assistance of design/causation. That would be spooky.

It certainly would.

Turbojets don't fuck.

 

[Malintent]

- - - Updated - - -

Theists seem to mistake an assertion of agency for "explanation." Science explores the actual mechanics of phenomena.

No skeptics seem to make the mistake that the only explanation is science.
You are confusing two different levels of explanation.
AKA a categorical fallacy.

right... the kindergarten 'explanation' of why you must brush your teeth before going to bed, aka "because I said so" (agency), versus the rational explanation of why brushing is important, aka "because regimented hygienic discipline preserves your health" (rational).

yes, they are totally different levels, child versus adult.

 

[Malintent]

I don't think that word means what they think it means.

???

goddidit is not an explanation... it is the avoidance of an explanation... "because I said so" isn't an explanation. It may be a reason to comply (out of threat of harm), but it serves to explain nothing.

That is why I said that the word does not mean what it seems the poster was trying to say.

 

[remez]

Large numbers of American religionists are fundamentalists and biblical literalists. God made the Universe from nothing de novo. Very few would agree the Universe existed prior to God's existence, or apart from God's existence, not dependent on God. Presuppositionalism and TAG is built into that species of religion. Sure we can find a few Mormons, Process theology adherents, and so on, but the entire Christian literalist evangelical type religion supported by large numbers of Americans, (and others) do believe in the concept of a transcendental God wh creates all and is not reliant on any type of naturalism.


Arguing that not all Christians believe in these concepts is true, but is quibbling. This is all valid for most religious Christians, despite the fact that not everyone is a Christian, for example, some people are Scientologists.

I'm not sure how to respond to that. It shows a complete lack of understanding of theistic apologetics. Particularly mine. I'm not a presuppositionalist. Seriously google presuppositional vs classical apologists. I would fall into the classical approach. To others waiting to pounce. I know there are also other popular methods of apologetics such as cumulative case, evidentialism, historical and reformed. It was a just place to start that would directly inform our discussion.

 

[remez]

Again.........

WCL states clearly that morality proves God's existence.

Yes Yes Yes

But his reasoning for doing so is not as you stated...because science can't explain therefore God. You substituted the reasoning GK used to dismiss an objection as the reasoning of the argument itself in order to justify your assertion of gofg. That is a straw man. You didn't even recognize the MA when I gave it to you. Instead you offered GK's refutation of an objection to the MA as the MA itself and told me I was wrong.

You asked for an example of an apologist doing exactly that and I gave you one.

Look again. You originally inferred that the reasoning of the argument was.....BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THEREFORE GOD. Here....

Lots of apologists explicitly claim evolution cannot account for our morality, therefore God must be the explanation.
Google is your friend.

Even I would agree that reasoning is bad.
But......
That is not the logic of the argument.
That was your invented interpretation.
Thus my job in defending the MA was to show you "how" you built your straw man.
Sorry if that seems negative.
Again..................
The argument says nothing of science. Science was offered by a skeptic as a reason to object. GK responded to the objection (your provided post earlier) with reasons matching the context of the objection. You then substituted those reasons against the objection for the reason of the argument itself thus rendering the argument nonsensical. Further you and others repeatedly make the same claim, that its the apologists bad reasoning that causes the failure. Not in these cases, for you changed the reasoning of the argument. You and BH did the same thing with the FTA in our other thread with regards to the multiverse.

WCL is a well known apologist has long been battling religious skepticism. You got what you asked for.

Yes Yes Yes he is a great classical apologist. Not a presuppositionalist.
Again..............
But I did not get what I asked for. I asked you to specifically show me where some apologist offers the argument that because science can't explain it therefore God. What you gave me earlier in response to this was GK's reasoning to reject an objection offered to counter the actual reasoning of the MA. It's a common objection with a common reply. However that common reply can't be substituted as the reasoning of the actual MA. To substitute the reason against an objection for the reasoning of the original argument is to create a straw man.

What do I want?

I want you to see your straw man.

Again............You changed the reasoning of the argument to refute it with a gotg assertion. Your foil of negativity.

 

[remez]

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

AHHHHHHH.......... the Inventor.

 

[Malintent]

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

That phenomenon is called Intelligent Design.

 

[Kharakov]

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

That phenomenon is called Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design's just another word for evolution that occurs in simulated reality.

 

[Malintent]

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

That phenomenon is called Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design's just another word for evolution that occurs in simulated reality.

If a Designer's design designs something, then is the designer's designed design also designed by the Designer, or is it designated something other than a Designer's design?

 

[Kharakov]

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

That phenomenon is called Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design's just another word for evolution that occurs in simulated reality.

If a Designer's design designs something, then is the designer's designed design also designed by the Designer, or is it designated something other than a Designer's design?

I think the real question is "how much design would a designed designer design if a designed designer could design design?"

Damn fractal loops again.

 

[bigfield]

You are assuming that there is only one level of explanation and your OP asserts that the theistic explanation is wrong and useless because it does not match the only explanation that you're seeking. Back to your OP....

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer,.............

It depends on the intent of the question. Agency or mechanism.

It is completely useless if it was offered as an non-sequitur answer from ignorance to explain the "how" as God acting as a primary cause.

But if it is offered as an explanation of agency of all secondary causes, then it is not useless. To assert that Frank Whittle invented the jet turbo engine is not useless and does not effect the mechanistic how explanation. The forensic science, employed by homicide investigators, is not only directed at the how, but the agency is of great concern as well.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

AHHHHHHH.......... the Inventor.

What phenomenon are you explaining by identifying the inventor of the turbojet engine?

 

[Learner]

I think the real question is "how much design would a designed designer design if a designed designer could design design?"

As designed designers, we have designed so far , 4k Tv's for example.

 

[Kharakov]

I think the real question is "how much design would a designed designer design if a designed designer could design design?"

As designed designers, we have designed so far , 4k Tv's for example.

Another 4k in the path.

 

[remez]

No skeptics seem to make the mistake that the only explanation is science.
You are confusing two different levels of explanation.
AKA a categorical fallacy.

right... the kindergarten 'explanation' of why you must brush your teeth before going to bed, aka "because I said so" (agency), versus the rational explanation of why brushing is important, aka "because regimented hygienic discipline preserves your health" (rational).

yes, they are totally different levels, child versus adult.

Oversimplifying your opponents position is juvenile and gets you nowhere.

Watch....

right..... the kindergarten cop can explain "how" a serial killer murdered his victims. Case closed no need for agency.

But....
I must admit.
Your way does cut out lawyer costs.

 

[abaddon]

There have been sophisticated arguments for God over the centuries.

The end result of them looks no better than the very simple and stupid arguments. It's just some armchair thinkers dressing a hog in silk.

No God was ever presented by any of them that has explanatory power. You have to explain the mechanism by which God does anything, not merely assign God the attributes that are necessary to make the premises of an argument [seem to] work. ‘We need something eternal and non-contingent, and God’s defined that way, so that fills this hole in the train of logic…”

It is not scientism to say the realm of physics (and all your metaphysics must refer to physics or it’s meta-shit) is where humans will work out, if they ever do, how the Cosmos works.

Don't nitpick it if you don't think the phrasing of anything I've said is perfect. Because, again, complaining that atheists don't frame theistic arguments how you'd like doesn't make the arguments for God less lame. Just phrase them how you'd like and see if a God in something other than mere name comes out of it.