The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit

[Cheerful Charlie]

God is supposedly good, totally good, the very epitome of goodness, but revelation claims God chooses to make some elect and leave others not elect and damned....

Revelation? Which revelation? Christianity? Islam? Mormonism?

Islam, qadar, God is supposedly all good, compassionate and merciful, but predetermines all, who will be lead rightly and who will be lead astray. Christianity, predestination is directl from Paul's theology. Mormonism does not believe in predestination. Hinduism does in many of it's schools.

 

[Learner]

The universal problem with this argument is that the explanation offered by religion is devoid of explanatory power. When science asks why, science is really asking for an explanation of how that thing came to be; it's a request for details regarding the cause.

For example:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"

A useful answer might explain that:
1. Things with mass are attracted to each other
2. The strength of this attractive force varies: it is equal to the product of the two object's masses divided by the square of the distance between them.
3. Therefore the Earth and objects above it are pulled towards one another and we perceive this as objects falling.
4. The Earth barely moves because it is so massive and has a lot of inertia, so the tiny attractive force between the falling object and the Earth barely nudges the Earth.
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, because it consists of nothing but an empty label. It tells us that an agent has acted to make things fall to the ground but does not tell us how that agent acted. And without the how, it is not an explanation.

You can insert the 'how' within the context that an agent acted by 'creating' the very gravity , inertia , force , mass , in the first place and NOT seperated by placing the ' how ' in a different context to mean Goddidit by 'another explanation' other than what we call the 'natural phenomenon.' Natural and natural laws as observed is not a contradiction to creation.

My laymans terms regarding natural laws and properties restrictions with physical laws. We aptly name them laws by the predictable repetitive character. If it walks and talks like a duck then it is a ...... or put it another way; There are only two choices really and creationist/ IDers imo have the better explanation/probability of the two.

 

[Malintent]

As far as I can tell, every single use of the word 'god' can be exchanged for variations on 'I don't know', without making any significant change to the statement being made.

'God created the universe' is synonymous with 'I don't know what created the universe'.

'God commands it' is synonymous with 'I don't know if something commands it'.

It's a placeholder for abject ignorance. And it applies to ALL gods.

'Thor makes the thunder' is indestinguishable from 'I don't know what makes the thunder'.

Gods are the personification of intellectual laziness and of ignorance.

More honest to just say 'I don't know, yet'.

not only laziness and ignorance... it is also a lack of imagination and the belief that these things are otherwise 'unknowable'.

It was impossible, and unimaginable, not so long ago, that a person can speak and be heard by hundreds of millions of people simultaneously.

One could have even shown evidence that it would NEVER be possible to do that. Some calculations on the decibel level of sound needed to travel the distance required to audibly reach that many people would likely show a level so high, it would rupture the bodies of those relatively close to the speaker. And... that being the case... scientific research into technologies relating to mass communication would be considered "dangerous", and "unethical".

 

[Malintent]

The universal problem with this argument is that the explanation offered by religion is devoid of explanatory power. When science asks why, science is really asking for an explanation of how that thing came to be; it's a request for details regarding the cause.

For example:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"

A useful answer might explain that:
1. Things with mass are attracted to each other
2. The strength of this attractive force varies: it is equal to the product of the two object's masses divided by the square of the distance between them.
3. Therefore the Earth and objects above it are pulled towards one another and we perceive this as objects falling.
4. The Earth barely moves because it is so massive and has a lot of inertia, so the tiny attractive force between the falling object and the Earth barely nudges the Earth.
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, because it consists of nothing but an empty label. It tells us that an agent has acted to make things fall to the ground but does not tell us how that agent acted. And without the how, it is not an explanation.

You can insert the 'how' within the context that an agent acted by 'creating' the very gravity , inertia , force , mass , in the first place and NOT seperated by placing the ' how ' in a different context to mean Goddidit by 'another explanation' other than what we call the 'natural phenomenon.' Natural and natural laws as observed is not a contradiction to creation.

My laymans terms regarding natural laws and properties restrictions with physical laws. We aptly name them laws by the predictable repetitive character. If it walks and talks like a duck then it is a ...... or put it another way; There are only two choices really and creationist/ IDers imo have the better explanation/probability of the two.

Well, you are stuck with having to do that, actually... if god crated the universe, then he created the laws... like time. Time, being a measure of change. But before god could create time, there must not have been time... soooo, no change could possible be made. so god could not have changed anything because there was no time within which change could occur. A simple way of expressing this is, "WHEN did God have the TIME to create TIME?"

There are too many paradoxes associated with an intelligent agent creating those things that intelligent agents come from... chicken, egg, you know the drill.

 

[Learner]

Well, you are stuck with having to do that, actually... if god crated the universe, then he created the laws... like time. Time, being a measure of change. But before god could create time, there must not have been time... soooo, no change could possible be made. so god could not have changed anything because there was no time within which change could occur.

A simple way of expressing this is, "WHEN did God have the TIME to create TIME?"

I guess I see it as a perceptual measure of time only exists with physical matter in the physical universe just like your quote where changes are noticeable in linear fashion. Young to old , beginnings and endings , start to finishing , small to big - or vice versa to say the obvious.

There are too many paradoxes associated with an intelligent agent creating those things that intelligent agents come from... chicken, egg, you know the drill.

We can find paradoxes in everyday life , as for the chicken and the egg. I personally would say the chicken came first only because of the example of Adam and Eve. Neither were created as a feotus/baby first, that of course came later in their offspring.

 

[bigfield]

The universal problem with this argument is that the explanation offered by religion is devoid of explanatory power. When science asks why, science is really asking for an explanation of how that thing came to be; it's a request for details regarding the cause.

For example:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"

A useful answer might explain that:
1. Things with mass are attracted to each other
2. The strength of this attractive force varies: it is equal to the product of the two object's masses divided by the square of the distance between them.
3. Therefore the Earth and objects above it are pulled towards one another and we perceive this as objects falling.
4. The Earth barely moves because it is so massive and has a lot of inertia, so the tiny attractive force between the falling object and the Earth barely nudges the Earth.
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, because it consists of nothing but an empty label. It tells us that an agent has acted to make things fall to the ground but does not tell us how that agent acted. And without the how, it is not an explanation.

You can insert the 'how' within the context that an agent acted by 'creating' the very gravity , inertia , force , mass , in the first place and NOT seperated by placing the ' how ' in a different context to mean Goddidit by 'another explanation' other than what we call the 'natural phenomenon.' Natural and natural laws as observed is not a contradiction to creation.

Attributing the existence of natural phenomena to the entirely mysterious actions of an unknowable agent explains nothing.

That is also the reason why Remez's comparisons with human agents are inane.

 

[bigfield]

The biblical theist who knows that God exists is able to speak.

You probably 'know' based on some personal Road to Damascus moment.

I made a thread about people like you; feel free to gloat about your superior 'knowledge' over there.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10168-Powerful-personal-experiences-vs-skepticism

 

[bilby]

I guess I see it as a perceptual measure of time only exists with physical matter in the physical universe just like your quote where changes are noticeable in linear fashion. Young to old , beginnings and endings , start to finishing , small to big - or vice versa to say the obvious.

There are too many paradoxes associated with an intelligent agent creating those things that intelligent agents come from... chicken, egg, you know the drill.

We can find paradoxes in everyday life , as for the chicken and the egg. I personally would say the chicken came first only because of the example of Adam and Eve. Neither were created as a feotus/baby first, that of course came later in their offspring.

This is why 'personally thinking' is valueless without learning.

The egg pre-dates the chicken by millions of years. And no matter how you define 'chicken' the first one logically must have hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

You should stop 'personally thinking', and start accepting the offers of the giants who did all the hard work centuries ago.

Otherwise you have no chance of ever grasping reality.

 

[Learner]

This is why 'personally thinking' is valueless without learning.

The egg pre-dates the chicken by millions of years. And no matter how you define 'chicken' the first one logically must have hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

You should stop 'personally thinking', and start accepting the offers of the giants who did all the hard work centuries ago.

Otherwise you have no chance of ever grasping reality.

Everybody personally thinks regardless of the stage that the individual has had in learning or experience one has had his or her life.. having had some time to 'ponder' on things. Giants of the pre-days have been known to be wrong as perhaps in this regard this is why the chicken and the egg is still used as a paradoxical example.

 

[bilby]

This is why 'personally thinking' is valueless without learning.

The egg pre-dates the chicken by millions of years. And no matter how you define 'chicken' the first one logically must have hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

You should stop 'personally thinking', and start accepting the offers of the giants who did all the hard work centuries ago.

Otherwise you have no chance of ever grasping reality.

Everybody personally thinks regardless of the stage that the individual has had in learning or experience one has had his or her life.. having had some time to 'ponder' on things. Giants of the pre-days have been known to be wrong as perhaps in this regard this is why the chicken and the egg is still used as a paradoxical example.

The only reason for the chicken and the egg to continue to exist as an example of a supposed paradox is that people are, in general, very poorly educated.

The answer is known. It's been obvious and well known for a long time.

Uneducated people still think it's a paradox. They should try learning stuff, as an alternative to holding opinions based on guesswork. Because if they'll don't, they will always be wrong - and likely will be laughed at by those who bothered to put in the effort to get an education.

Biology exists. Anyone can learn it. Nobody who bothers to do so still thinks the question of whether eggs pre-date chickens is a mystery or a paradox.

 

[Learner]

The only reason for the chicken and the egg to continue to exist as an example of a supposed paradox is that people are, in general, very poorly educated.

The answer is known. It's been obvious and well known for a long time.

Uneducated people still think it's a paradox. They should try learning stuff, as an alternative to holding opinions based on guesswork. Because if they'll don't, they will always be wrong - and likely will be laughed at by those who bothered to put in the effort to get an education.

The chicken and the egg is well known to the educated ? Hmm interesting ... or do you mean only those educated finding great interest in that particular field of poultry science ? Although unintentional,you may have offended a poster who brought it up in the first place.

 

[Learner]

Attributing the existence of natural phenomena to the entirely mysterious actions of an unknowable agent explains nothing.

That is also the reason why Remez's comparisons with human agents are inane.

Natural phenomena has been for some time used as the yard stick for atheists to argue with by claiming it as theirs. Using this as the method to measure against theists giving atheists false explanations for their argument when natural phenomena is only concievably understood by them as "just being here and it just is".

 

[bilby]

The only reason for the chicken and the egg to continue to exist as an example of a supposed paradox is that people are, in general, very poorly educated.

The answer is known. It's been obvious and well known for a long time.

Uneducated people still think it's a paradox. They should try learning stuff, as an alternative to holding opinions based on guesswork. Because if they'll don't, they will always be wrong - and likely will be laughed at by those who bothered to put in the effort to get an education.

The chicken and the egg is well known to the educated ? Hmm interesting ... or do you mean only those educated finding great interest in that particular field of poultry science ? Although unintentional,you may have offended a poster who brought it up in the first place.

I intend no offence; it's a simple fact that you need to be incredibly poorly educated not to grasp the simple fact that eggs pre-date chickens by MILLIONS OF YEARS. This is not some obscure area of 'poultry science', it's basic biology. This is not a minor or easily made error. It requires almost wilful ignorance not to know this. At the very least one would need to be completely incurious, and have no desire to find out about things before commenting on them, before one could seriously propose this as a paradox or a problem. Or one might be a small child. Infants can be forgiven for such basic errors.

 

[Learner]

I intend no offence; it's a simple fact that you need to be incredibly poorly educated not to grasp the simple fact that eggs pre-date chickens by MILLIONS OF YEARS. This is not some obscure area of 'poultry science', it's basic biology. This is not a minor or easily made error. It requires almost wilful ignorance not to know this.

There is a logic to eggs pre-dating chickens if we are talking dinosaurs. Those giants of pre-days you mentioned that did all the work weren't taken serious by the "educated" scientists themselves it seems when for example ;‘

British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2010/07/13/the-c...he-egg-scientists-prove-447738/#ixzz4X3v6QVEY

This of course was 2010 and I use this because people who were educated back then in the field would have accepted this after this was announced. Quite a few would still hold to this as they go through life ..therefore in the great world out there it would be understandable ; the chicken and the egg is still a pradoxical example to many - who are not neccessarily poorly educated and who 'did their basic biology'.

At the very least one would need to be completely incurious, and have no desire to find out about things before commenting on them, before one could seriously propose this as a paradox or a problem. Or one might be a small child. Infants can be forgiven for such basic errors.

Well I'm interested now .. hopefully I can be forgiven.

 

[bigfield]

Attributing the existence of natural phenomena to the entirely mysterious actions of an unknowable agent explains nothing.

That is also the reason why Remez's comparisons with human agents are inane.

Natural phenomena has been for some time used as the yard stick for atheists to argue with by claiming it as theirs. Using this as the method to measure against theists giving atheists false explanations for their argument when natural phenomena is only concievably understood by them as "just being here and it just is".

What a bizarre response. I need only refer you to the OP for an example of an explanation that is better than "it just is".

Is the concept of explanatory power completely incomprehensible to you?

 

[Learner]

Is the concept of explanatory power completely incomprehensible to you?

I'll come back to you on that and try to understand.

(we're going to dinner)

 

[Lion IRC]

The egg came before the egg shell.
And the unfertilised egg came before the embryo.
And whether you believe Genesis or not abiogenesis did not start with an egg.

However you cut it, the egg came second.

 

[Malintent]

This is why 'personally thinking' is valueless without learning.

The egg pre-dates the chicken by millions of years. And no matter how you define 'chicken' the first one logically must have hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

You should stop 'personally thinking', and start accepting the offers of the giants who did all the hard work centuries ago.

Otherwise you have no chance of ever grasping reality.

Everybody personally thinks regardless of the stage that the individual has had in learning or experience one has had his or her life.. having had some time to 'ponder' on things. Giants of the pre-days have been known to be wrong as perhaps in this regard this is why the chicken and the egg is still used as a paradoxical example.

small point, but important... that chicken / egg point that I raised is not an example of an instance of a paradox, I used it as a means to express "it's a paradox".

 

[Learner]

small point, but important... that chicken / egg point that I raised is not an example of an instance of a paradox, I used it as a means to express "it's a paradox".

Ok understood.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think its a paradox.
The egg and the chicken can't BOTH come first.