The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit

[Kharakov]

What came first, the neutron or spacetime?

Obviously the electron shell came after the neutron decayed.

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

 

[remez]

This is simply a bump for Charlie. To reference in other General religion forum....tricky questions.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist1/

Hence we may argue:

1. Objective moral values and duties exist.

2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.



- William Craig Lane

What is your point? I know that is the argument. I gave it to you years ago and you denied it was.
Here post 31 from thread “The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit”

A very common such argument is the argument from morality. Evolution cannot explain human morality, therefore God.

Here is the Moral Argument.......

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

It speaks nothing of a gap whatsoever.
Defend your position that this is gofg.

----

No. That is a completely different argument.

http://www.str.org/articles/evolution-can-t-explain-morality
Yesterday I had a very interesting conversation about morality and whether evolution is an adequate explanation for morality. Many of you know that I have argued for a long time that morality -- the existence of moral things, "oughts", the notion of moral actions and moral motives, the reality of morality -- is a very powerful evidence for the existence of a moral God, whose character is the moral standard of the universe. I won't suggest that this is without problems, but I think it best answers the existence of morality.


-----

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

Again your logic and scrutiny are failing. You are now providing evidence for my case and somehow reason it proves your case. WOW!

Observe you asserted that the MA was ......."Lots of apologists explicitly claim evolution cannot account for our morality, therefore God must be the explanation." Now you are correctly quoting the argument. So how does that prove that you don't have a history of creating straw men?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

At this point, I haven't the faintest idea of what you are arguing about. WTF? Do you have a point to make?

 

[bigfield]

remez has another chance to answer my question:

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....


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?

 

[remez]

At this point, I haven't the faintest idea of what you are arguing about. WTF? Do you have a point to make?

Here…………..

The "game" is to look at the propositions of supposed revelations of the Bible et al, the claims of theologians and believers, and then to examine them logically, taking them to their logical conclusions and noting how none of it really withstands careful scrutiny. For us skeptics, in the final analysis, Christianity doesn't make the grade. Carefully examined it isn't coherent and does not withstand careful scrutiny. Sorry if that is not to your liking.

The “logic/scrutiny” you use to conclude that Christianity absurd is fallacious and flawed. That’s all.

Now if I left it right there, you would simply deny and likely claim I had no evidence.

So I had to provide the evidence for my assertion. Hence the rest was evidence provided to support my assertion of your fallacious reasoning.

The example I chose to present (from the many) was the time you tried to show that Christian apologists to be absurd by arguing that apologists concluded that God exists because evolution could not explain morality. If that were that case then I would fervently agree with you, that the case is absurd.
But……….
That is not the Christian argument from morality as I pointed out. Thus your representation of the Christian apologetic was a straw man. You comically stepped in it everywhere.

 

[remez]

remez has another chance to answer my question:

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?

You answered it yourself. There is more than one explanation. You could explain its mechanism and you could explain its agency. Just because we can explain how it works does not explain the cause of its existence. In this case agency explains the cause of its existence. There is more than one explanation and one does not eliminate the other. That's all.

 

[bigfield]

remez has another chance to answer my question:

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

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

You answered it yourself. There is more than one explanation. You could explain its mechanism and you could explain its agency. Just because we can explain how it works does not explain the cause of its existence. In this case agency explains the cause of its existence. There is more than one explanation and one does not eliminate the other. That's all.

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

 

[remez]

remez has another chance to answer my question:

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

You answered it yourself. There is more than one explanation. You could explain its mechanism and you could explain its agency. Just because we can explain how it works does not explain the cause of its existence. In this case agency explains the cause of its existence. There is more than one explanation and one does not eliminate the other. That's all.

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

Your reasoning is there is known as a categorical fallacy. Look it up.

 

[bigfield]

remez has another chance to answer my question:

You answered it yourself. There is more than one explanation. You could explain its mechanism and you could explain its agency. Just because we can explain how it works does not explain the cause of its existence. In this case agency explains the cause of its existence. There is more than one explanation and one does not eliminate the other. That's all.

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

Your reasoning is there is known as a categorical fallacy. Look it up.

Your "levels" of explanation are a meaningless distinction. Asking "who" did something is just asking for the name/label of the phenomenon. In the case of the turbojet engine, Frank Whittle is a label for a particular human about whom we know some particulars, and invention is a label for a creative process that human beings do. These labels are only useful because they stand in for useful descriptions.

Unlike Frank Whittle and invention, God and did it are just empty labels that explain nothing.

 

[remez]

You answered it yourself. There is more than one explanation. You could explain its mechanism and you could explain its agency. Just because we can explain how it works does not explain the cause of its existence. In this case agency explains the cause of its existence. There is more than one explanation and one does not eliminate the other. That's all.

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

Your reasoning is there is known as a categorical fallacy. Look it up.

Your "levels" of explanation are a meaningless distinction. Asking "who" did something is just asking for the name/label of the phenomenon. In the case of the turbojet engine, Frank Whittle is a label for a particular human about whom we know some particulars, and invention is a label for a creative process that human beings do. These labels are only useful because they stand in for useful descriptions.

Unlike Frank Whittle and invention, God and did it are just empty labels that explain nothing.

Your subjective opinion over which explanation means more to you is what is meaningless from a reasoning POV. My concern was your attempt to show God existence absurd by creating a categorical fallacy.

You asked for a mechanistic explanation and then provided an agency explanation to make your inference that God is absurd. God is not absurd the reasoning is absurd.

 

[bigfield]

...

Your "levels" of explanation are a meaningless distinction. Asking "who" did something is just asking for the name/label of the phenomenon. In the case of the turbojet engine, Frank Whittle is a label for a particular human about whom we know some particulars, and invention is a label for a creative process that human beings do. These labels are only useful because they stand in for useful descriptions.

Unlike Frank Whittle and invention, God and did it are just empty labels that explain nothing.

Your subjective opinion over which explanation means more to you is what is meaningless from a reasoning POV. My concern was your attempt to show God existence absurd by creating a categorical fallacy.

You asked for a mechanistic explanation and then provided an agency explanation to make your inference that God is absurd. God is not absurd the reasoning is absurd.

The God of the Bible is absurd, but that's not the inference I'm making. The point is that Godidit lacks explanatory power.

Your "levels" of explanation are a meaningless distinction. See here.

Godidit can easily be rephrased without reference to an agent: "It was a miracle", Where the empty label God is replaced by the empty label miracle.

 

[remez]

Your subjective opinion over which explanation means more to you is what is meaningless from a reasoning POV. My concern was your attempt to show God existence absurd by creating a categorical fallacy.

You asked for a mechanistic explanation and then provided an agency explanation to make your inference that God is absurd. God is not absurd the reasoning is absurd.

The God of the Bible is absurd, but that's not the inference I'm making. The point is that Godidit lacks explanatory power.

Your "levels" of explanation are a meaningless distinction. See here.

Godidit can easily be rephrased without reference to an agent: "It was a miracle", Where the empty label God is replaced by the empty label miracle.

I don’t deny that there are some narrow instances in common speech where God and miracle can be used synonymously.
But….
We were talking logic here. Now the issue with what you said is something different.

You have used the phrase “It was a miracle.” as a given explanation. To judge whether you were logically coherent or categorically fallacious depends on the event in question and the nature (who, what, when, where, how) of the explanation you were seeking.

Your reference to……………..

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

…..does not support you. Because that is a classic example of a categorical fallacy. You are providing a “who” for a “why” explanation. And you are doing so to infer that God is meaningless.

That would be analogous to me trying to infer Whittle is meaningless by asserting that since we know why the turbo engine works then Whittle is meaningless.

 

[Rhea]

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

that is a classic example of a categorical fallacy. You are providing a “who” for a “why” explanation. And you are doing so to infer that God is meaningless.

Then,

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God wanted it to happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

"Everything happens for a reason"

 

[Kharakov]

Then,

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God wanted it to happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

"Everything happens for a reason"

Nature did it.

Any sufficiently vague explanatory statement is true and has no explanatory "power". <-- Is sufficient sufficient?


Christians generally like to connect themselves to a God that set them up in their position in society, and ignore the work of the many people who create the goods that they consume. Basically, God is a way of ignoring the help, and the plight of the help. I've an aunt and uncle who invoke God for their ill gotten gains... instead of simply position in a pecking order that favors them.

Of course, they also fought to get where they are, and ignore those they prevented from rising so that they could live their lives of comfort at the end. God belief should be illegal among the rich. Speaking of God should be illegal among the wealthy. They should not have that comfort.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Speaking of God should be illegal among the wealthy. They should not have that comfort.

Wouldn't it be more helpful if speaking of god were illegal among the poor so they wouldn't suffer under false hopes?

 

[Learner]

Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

,

Then

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God wanted it to happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

"Everything happens for a reason"

Like Remez is saying; providing a “who” for a “why” explanation.

And in both quotes when the question asks "Why do things fall to the ground?" The OP could be a little misleading because, I don't think many Christians today would say Goddit, directly to the actual context of the question, and would more likely say "gravity" would be the answer. You (plural) seem to have jumped a step (for lack of right words) giving the false impression that theists don't know what gravity is, or ... that theists have replaced the answer with Goddit, in denial of there being such a thing as gravity.

Although to be fair. Goddit was the old "churchgoers" answer in those days past. (but in context, to the "whole" grand scheme of things)

 

[bigfield]

I don’t deny that there are some narrow instances in common speech where God and miracle can be used synonymously.
But….
We were talking logic here. Now the issue with what you said is something different.

You have used the phrase “It was a miracle.” as a given explanation. To judge whether you were logically coherent or categorically fallacious depends on the event in question and the nature (who, what, when, where, how) of the explanation you were seeking.

Both "miracle" and "Godidit" are impotent explanations regardless.

Your reference to……………..

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

…..does not support you. Because that is a classic example of a categorical fallacy. You are providing a “who” for a “why” explanation. And you are doing so to infer that God is meaningless.

That would be analogous to me trying to infer Whittle is meaningless by asserting that since we know why the turbo engine works then Whittle is meaningless.

Your Whittle analogy shows you don't get it.


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

 

[bigfield]

Although to be fair. Goddit was the old "churchgoers" answer in those days past. (but in context, to the "whole" grand scheme of
things)

Not much has changed. Goddidit is still rolled out as the explanation for things people doesn't understand.

 

[Rhea]

Then


"Everything happens for a reason"

Like Remez is saying; providing a “who” for a “why” explanation.

And in both quotes when the question asks "Why do things fall to the ground?" The OP could be a little misleading because, I don't think many Christians today would say Goddit, directly to the actual context of the question, and would more likely say "gravity" would be the answer. You (plural) seem to have jumped a step (for lack of right words) giving the false impression that theists don't know what gravity is, or ... that theists have replaced the answer with Goddit, in denial of there being such a thing as gravity.

Although to be fair. Goddit was the old "churchgoers" answer in those days past. (but in context, to the "whole" grand scheme of things)

I think gravity is merely a shorthand for any of the things believers say happen-because-god. Like when they explain the death of a child as part of a plan, or evolution as god-guided ("it wouldn't happen without God," also: "Platypus!"), or tornadoes striking cities with gays in them, or a person surviving a surgery, or any of their things. It is all analogous to gravity; something that doesn't require god in the explanation but they put it there.

So current-day believers, whether they do church or not, still employ "godditit" every day.

 

[remez]

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God made it happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

that is a classic example of a categorical fallacy. You are providing a “who” for a “why” explanation. And you are doing so to infer that God is meaningless.

Then,

Let's see how well this works for the example in the OP:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"
Answer: "God wanted it to happen."

Explanatory impotence in action.

"Everything happens for a reason"

Is this a trick?

Just kidding.

But seriously…..I don’t follow. What are you trying to reason there?