Is "god did it" an explanation?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Would it? God has to operate by some mechanism. You can't conjure complex things into existence without some kind of computation or massive framework of physical capacity behind it (like some kind of fancy printing machine.)

We're talking about God here not Superman or the Wizard of Oz.

The whole point about God is that He does exactly that all the time.

What you are saying is exactly equivalent to saying God does not exist.

So when God (for example) sends a plague of locusts, He's not just transporting them from an undisclosed location using advanced technology.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

It's is very important for us atheists to define exactly we don't believe in.

 

[pgwenthold]

I look at a huge building, and ask, "How did that come to be?" Someone standing by me says, "People did it."

Actually, let's use a real example: how did the pyramids come to be? "The Egyptians built them"

How is that an answer? Even though it is true, it doesn't explain anything.

It's a completely trivial and useless statement that provides nothing.

 

[Aridas]

Don’t some theists claim that evolution is all part of God’s perfect design and that God lit the wick of the Big Bang?

Most do, I think, if you actually look at the numbers.

I would contend that it is reasonable, even when dead wrong, because IF there were a god and if that god had the characteristics of the biblical god so many believe in, this is the only permissible explanation.

I would contend that "understandable" would be a more accurate word than "reasonable," in that case. "Reasonable" can be accurate when used in context, but is easily conflated with stronger uses of the word.

ETA:

I look at a huge building, and ask, "How did that come to be?" Someone standing by me says, "People did it."

Actually, let's use a real example: how did the pyramids come to be? "The Egyptians built them"

How is that an answer? Even though it is true, it doesn't explain anything.

It's a completely trivial and useless statement that provides nothing.

It's a valid explanation. It can certainly be argued that it's not a complete explanation that answers all meanings of "How did the pyramids come to be," but it does answer a couple. Thus, I would agree with the "trivial," but not with the "useless" descriptor that you used, given that it does provide information that wasn't necessarily known. If the question was "How did the Egyptians build the pyramids," that answer would not be an explanation, on the other hand.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

The core misunderstanding is very simple.

"How did the universe come to be?"

"God did it."

"No, not 'who did it?', but 'how was it done?'"


Sums it up in my estimation.

The answer "god did it" is answering a different question than was asked.

 

[Tristan Chi]

The core misunderstanding is very simple.

"How did the universe come to be?"

"God did it."

"No, not 'who did it?', but 'how was it done?'"


Sums it up in my estimation.

The answer "god did it" is answering a different question than was asked.

^^^ This. It's amazing that this dishonesty isn't pointed out more frequently.

In what other situations would a 'who' answer to a 'how' question be acceptable?

 

[bruto]

^^^ This. It's amazing that this dishonesty isn't pointed out more frequently.

In what other situations would a 'who' answer to a 'how' question be acceptable?

For sure it's a bad answer, and a different question, wrong in any situation... unless you believe in the god of the bible, who prefers us to remain ignorant of detail. To those of us on the outside of that fence, it seems pretty obvious why this is, and how fragile god is, but we must remember that it looks quite different if you're on the other side.

 

[Toontown]

Welcome to the forums.

You're right, it's a lousy response. Saying "Goddidit" allows people to turn off their brains. Thinking takes effort, and some people are content taking the easy way out.

Steve S

It doesn't really take that much effort to say "I have no idea how that happened or why. But that doesn't mean a Majic Guy In The Sky did it for completely mysterious and probably unknowable reasons."

The above is just as easy to say as "Goddidit", and more honest and accurate to boot.

 

[ebardos]

In what other situations would a 'who' answer to a 'how' question be acceptable?

Mother: "How did the vase get broken?"

1. Me: "It fell off the shelf, breaking when it hit the floor." (not what she's looking for)

2. Me: "I'm sorry, I did it." (answer that will satisfy her)

3. Me: "My brother did it." (answer that will satisfy me)

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Mother: "How did the vase get broken?"

1. Me: "It fell off the shelf, breaking when it hit the floor." (not what she's looking for)

2. Me: "I'm sorry, I did it." (answer that will satisfy her)

3. Me: "My brother did it." (answer that will satisfy me)

That's because you know how someone can accidentally break a vase.

We don't know how a deity could create a universe.

Hence, simply saying that God did it is not satisfactory.

ETA: but I get your point.

 

[HansMustermann]

I dunno, mom is a programmer and complete nerd. She's been known to do stuff like "do you want me to call a taxi for you, or are you taking the bus?" with technically correct answers like "Yes" herself. She might actually appreciate an answer about the impact with the floor

 

[Dog Breakfast]

In what other situations would a 'who' answer to a 'how' question be acceptable?

Anagram conventions.

 

[mike3]

Welcome to the forums.

You're right, it's a lousy response. Saying "Goddidit" allows people to turn off their brains. Thinking takes effort, and some people are content taking the easy way out.

Steve S

No, it's more than that. There are definite emotional reasons for that approach.

 

[Aepervius]

Child rape? God did it. The Holocaust? God did it. Or did nothing and let those things happen. Or doesn't have the power to stop them.

Actually among many of the "fervent" christian I see this all the time. Anything good happen => praise gods, jesus, or the saint (catholics....). But anything bad happens , a person is always the guilty one. Never the mythological persons. I think it comes down to divine agency never being wrong (even when they ask to bash baby heads against rocks, maul kids with bears, or kill everybody except the virgin to marry-rape them), so when something goes bad they always search for the agency which can make error : men.

Pretty much irrational, but would you expect anything else ?

ETA: like the guys thanlking god for a medical operation which went without a hitch. That always made my blood boil. I always want to ask such people "What was the surgeron doing while god was operating ? Smoking a joint in the closet ?"

 

[I Ratant]

A different take on "goddidit" is the Islamic abandon of struggle in adversity with "If it's Allah's will..."
I believe this mental state is responsible for the Israeli Premier's statement about warfare.. "It's easier when you're fighting Arabs", referring to the inability of the enemies of Israel to prevail against a spirited defense... such as the Bekaa Valley slaughter of the Syrian Air Force, something like 78 to zip.

 

[Sideroxylon]

A good explanation is one with utility. The power to reliably make predictions through our cause/effect narratives provides utility that allows us to not only function in our everyday lives but also generate technological artifacts. What gives a narrative/explanation this predictive power is in its prohibition of certain possible outcomes/observations, all things being equal.

For example, the planetary sized bodies in our solar system are all roughly spherical and this can explained by the even action of gravity in all directions for objects of a certain size/mass(?). This explanation allows us to predict that, all things being equal, a body of a given size/mass must be spherical.

Further if we don't see what we expect, we have an opportunity to learn. Throughout history it has been through encountering exceptions to scientific explanations that we have learned new rules of the game and new understandings of the world around us.

Godidit fails to deliver any predictive utility as it can accommodate any possible observation while excluding nothing.

 

[Beerina]

We're talking about God here not Superman or the Wizard of Oz.

The whole point about God is that He does exactly that all the time.

What you are saying is exactly equivalent to saying God does not exist.

So when God (for example) sends a plague of locusts, He's not just transporting them from an undisclosed location using advanced technology.

But he is. Did he tp in already-existing naturally-arising ones? Or did he make them suddenly for just this appearance? If so, how? What are the steps in creation ex nihilo, both with respect to physical manipulation and creation of the information content needed for the locusts as well as the creation itself (think car vs. assembly line).

I'll grant you an infinite computational device could effortlessly simulate a trillion world to evolve things virtually, or just copy existng data patterns, but the god still has to do these things, and what is that mechanism?

 

[fuelair]

Hi, this is my first thread on this forum hopefully it won't be the last .

Some religious people are contented with "god did it" as an explanation for just about anything that science hasn't explained yet or that they think that science hasn't explained (the apparent design of living things).

How can anyone be satisfied with "god did it" as an explanation? It doesn't explain how he did it. In other words they don't seem to be bothered that they don't have a mechanism for their explanation. It's no better than "it just happened".

What good is an explanation if it doesn't tell you how something happened? Unless its an explanation of who did it or what kind of thing it was, it doesn't help you if you want to know how something happened.

Thoughts?

Only if "Tom Sawyer did it." and any equivalent asking if a random fictional/mythological character "did it." is also accepted as an on it's face explanation.