Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 132

Thread: The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,837
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,681
    Rep Power
    55
    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.

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,436
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,382
    Rep Power
    61
    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?

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,651
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,034
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    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.

  4. Top | #24
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    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.

  5. Top | #25
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    "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?
    Last edited by remez; 01-23-2017 at 05:57 PM. Reason: edit one post ended up in yours ?????

  6. Top | #26
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    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.

  7. Top | #27
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by seyorni View Post
    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.

  8. Top | #28
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Malintent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    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.
    ???

  9. Top | #29
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,489
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    "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.

  10. Top | #30
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,489
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by seyorni View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •