The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit

[James Brown]

1. If there is no God, then how do you explain X?
2. You did not explain X to my satisfaction.
3. Therefore God exists.

I engaged in an e-mail debate with a Christian apologist who used this very reasoning, with X being one of six different things (The universe, morality, information, etc.)

I know you're not going to believe this, but I was unable to explain the origin of the universe to his satisfaction. So you can probably guess what he said next.

 

[abaddon]

I don’t think Christians mean to say God only exists in “gaps”, that it’s only just such gaps that support or “prove” their God, that God did nothing but create the universe and only acts supernaturally (in the alleged 'wherever' that science can’t detect), that anything explained naturalistically by science has successfully chased God just into gaps. The criticism, phrased in whatever way, was originated by Christians about other Christians seeking out what science doesn’t know as support for their belief in God. The noted problems are 1) it made the support for their belief in God into something that "shrinks" as knowledge increases and 2) it was a display of weak faith.

If there’s a god and he acts in the world, then why focus on origins and not on the here and now if you want to demonstrate his existence by evidence or reason?

 

[Malintent]

One often hears some variation of the following argument from theists:

1. Atheists cannot explain X.
2. My religion says that God did X, therefore my religion is better at explaining the universe than science.
3. Therefore my religion is true.

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

 

[remez]

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.

 

[remez]

"Tide goes in, tide goes out" by Bill O'Reilly:

As presented on the Factor I concur that it is a complete fallacy. So is it reasonable to conclude based on his bad philosophy only that God does not exist?

Not in his defense at all.....to the side view of your link in a related video....I saw an edited video where Bill provided a follow up referring to the moon then was cut off by the skeptic to provide another edit showing a scientific theory to "how" the moon possibly came to be. In that short follow up it seemed to me that Bill was building case for the secondary/natural causes of nature as opposed to primary cause. I would be interested to know where he was going with that line of reasoning. But again as presented on the factor it was a classic gotg. But again does his bad philosophy alone infer that God doesn't exist?

 

[remez]

I don’t think Christians mean to say God only exists in “gaps”, that it’s only just such gaps that support or “prove” their God, that God did nothing but create the universe and only acts supernaturally (in the alleged 'wherever' that science can’t detect), that anything explained naturalistically by science has successfully chased God just into gaps. The criticism, phrased in whatever way, was originated by Christians about other Christians seeking out what science doesn’t know as support for their belief in God. The noted problems are 1) it made the support for their belief in God into something that "shrinks" as knowledge increases and 2) it was a display of weak faith.

If there’s a god and he acts in the world, then why focus on origins and not on the here and now if you want to demonstrate his existence by evidence or reason?

Well said.

Other lines of reasoning are offered.
Origins aren't the sole case for God existence.

 

[remez]

- - - 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.

 

[remez]

One often hears some variation of the following argument from theists:

1. Atheists cannot explain X.
2. My religion says that God did X, therefore my religion is better at explaining the universe than science.
3. Therefore my religion is true.

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

???

 

[bigfield]

"Tide goes in, tide goes out" by Bill O'Reilly:

As presented on the Factor I concur that it is a complete fallacy. So is it reasonable to conclude based on his bad philosophy only that God does not exist?

Showing that an argument is invalid or fallacious does not prove the negation.

I conclude that god doea not exist because every argument I've ever heard or read has been either invalid or unsound.

 

[bigfield]

- - - 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.

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

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

- - - 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.

No, this is the old false charge of scientism.

Not all skeptics are supporters of rank scientism. The opposite of scientism is presuppositionalism. God creates all. Including logic, morality, the material Universe etc. But saying God is the reason behind everything is no more informative than saying fairies cause everything. It lacks explanatory power, and it's lacking evidence. Science is a methodology that works. Supernaturalism does not really explain anything so the burden of proof on those presuppositionalists who make broad claims is high.

God, as described by Christian theology has severe logical problems that indicate God is not a viable proposition as defined. Therefore presuppositionalism is suspect.

 

[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.

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.

It tells us that an agent has acted to make things fall to the ground but does not tell us how that agent acted.

You again may be conflating two different levels of explanation here.
The explanation may not have intended to explain the how.

And without the how, it is not an explanation.

That is a philosophical position that is asserted as fact. One that reasonable people would reject as a categorical fallacy. It is also the reason for some false gotg assertions.

 

[remez]

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.

That is the moral argument.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm


What you posted was Greg's response to an evolutionary counter offered against the argument.

Lots of apologists defend the MA against the claim that objective morality is best explained by the evolutionary process.
The argument itself says nothing of science.

Show me an apologist specifically arguing that because science can't explain it therefore God.

 

[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.

No, this is the old false charge of scientism.

Not all skeptics are supporters of rank scientism. The opposite of scientism is presuppositionalism. God creates all. Including logic, morality, the material Universe etc. But saying God is the reason behind everything is no more informative than saying fairies cause everything. It lacks explanatory power, and it's lacking evidence. Science is a methodology that works. Supernaturalism does not really explain anything so the burden of proof on those presuppositionalists who make broad claims is high.

God, as described by Christian theology has severe logical problems that indicate God is not a viable proposition as defined. Therefore presuppositionalism is suspect.

in part....

Not all skeptics are supporters of rank scientism. The opposite of scientism is presuppositionalism.

Not all theists are presuppositionalists.
One my conclude God creates all, not simply presuppose it.

God creates all. Including logic, morality, the material Universe etc.

You misunderstand theism. Logic and morals are not considered creations of God whereas the material universe is.

But saying God is the reason behind everything is no more informative than saying fairies cause everything.

It is not a simple assertion. It is an inferential trail the leads to God.

It lacks explanatory power, and it's lacking evidence.

That smells like scientism. Again that is a philosophical position that needs defense.

Supernaturalism does not really explain anything so the burden of proof on those presuppositionalists who make broad claims is high.

Not all theists are presuppositionalists. You seem confused on this.
Google it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

----

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.

That is the moral argument.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm


What you posted was Greg's response to an evolutionary counter offered against the argument.

Lots of apologists defend the MA against the claim that objective morality is best explained by the evolutionary process.
The argument itself says nothing of science.

Show me an apologist specifically arguing that because science can't explain it therefore God.

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
​

 

[abaddon]

- - - 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.

There’s no category error if there are not two or more categories to confuse. An explanation is an explanation; the differences between explanations (accounts that make things clearer) will be in their quality (of clarifying things). Explanations run along a spectrum from demonstrably false to implausible to plausible to demonstrably true with shades between. Looks to me like seyorni was making note of differences in quality, and you wanted to invent a whole new "level" or category so you can isolate "scientism" as part of Ye Olde Sophistic Theistic strategy of defining an enemy to oppose theism against rather than argue positively for theism. Creationists always want a foil, to show how wrong it is to not entertain theism, as if the nontheists have failed at that somehow and that's why they're not theists.

Why can't theists argue positively for theism rather than create a split between theism and their foil (atheists, scientists, scientism, empiricism, naturalism) so that the latter is portrayed as the blinder that prevents theism from being considered? If theism is a good explanation of anything, it shouldn't be such a problem to just do the explaining. And if you do, I bet most atheists will entertain the idea. Try it and see.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

The concept of God in whatever form, explains nothing.

 

[remez]

That is the moral argument.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm


What you posted was Greg's response to an evolutionary counter offered against the argument.

Lots of apologists defend the MA against the claim that objective morality is best explained by the evolutionary process.
The argument itself says nothing of science.

Show me an apologist specifically arguing that because science can't explain it therefore God.

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.

 

[remez]

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 to different levels of explanation.
AKA a categorical fallacy.

There’s no category error if there are not two or more categories to confuse.

Cat 1....agency
Cat 2.....mechanism

An explanation is an explanation; the differences between explanations (accounts that make things clearer) will be in their quality (of clarifying things). Explanations run along a spectrum from demonstrably false to implausible to plausible to demonstrably true with shades between.

Now you are confusing degree with category.

Looks to me like seyorni was making note of differences in quality, and you wanted to invent a whole new "level" or category

Look again..... theists make the mistake of asserting agency as an explanation and not mechanism. This does not infer degree. If it does then how would you degree two different explanations that address different aspects of the phenomena?

Theistic strategy of defining an enemy to oppose theism against rather than argue positively for theism.

I was not defining the enemy. I was clarifying the theistic reasoning that I felt was misrepresented.
The MA is a positive argument. The FTA and KCA are as well.

Creationists always want a foil, to show how wrong it is to not entertain theism, as if the nontheists have failed at that somehow and that's why they're not theists.

Now who is being negative? You are clarifying nothing there, just labeling and imparting intention.

Why can't theists argue positively for theism rather than create a split between theism and their foil (atheists, scientists, scientism, empiricism, naturalism) so that the latter is portrayed as the blinder that prevents theism from being considered?

Where are the MA, FTA or KCA negative?
See?
The arguments aren't negative. The defense of those arguments will obviously need to address the reasoning of the counters brought against them. If that reasoning is wrong should it go unaddressed Are you inferring that you just get to pronounce the arguments wrong and that's it? No debate?

If that's the case why don't you just accept the positive arguments for a theistic God and we can end all this negative discussion of why the others reasoning may be wrong?