Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (3)

[Tomatoman]

The fundamental problem with 'Goddidit' is that it doesn't mean anything.

The creationists here have no more idea of who or what their God is than the rest of us do. Ask them to tell us what God is and they start quoting the Bible at you, which is another way of saying they haven't the faintest idea. One thing is for certain, creationists are no closer to God than the rest of us. In fact, they are further away because their blind faith prevents them really trying to understand difficult science. It prevents them really making the effort to understand the universe we find ourselves in. Instead they prefer to remain stupid and keep repeating, "Goddidit, Goddidit, Goddidit", as if that was an answer. Well God's going to be really impressed with that, isn't He.

God: Tell me child, what did you do with the intelligence I gave you?

Creationists: Well, I didn't bother to find out exactly what the human race has discovered about the universe because an old book told me Goddidit. And that's what I kept repeating. Besides, the science was jolly difficult, and I knew it was wrong anyway, because Goddidit.

God: And how did this help you understand the universe I put you in?

Creationist: errr....


The level of ignorance displayed on this board by creationists is TRULY staggering. No offence intended, but, honestly!

 

[Nostromo]

Amen to that.

 

[Doveaman]

The fundamental problem with 'Goddidit' is that it doesn't mean anything.

It does not mean anything to you. Speak for yourself, not for us.

The creationists here have no more idea of who or what their God is than the rest of us do. Ask them to tell us what God is and they start quoting the Bible at you, which is another way of saying they haven't the faintest idea. One thing is for certain, creationists are no closer to God than the rest of us. In fact, they are further away because their blind faith prevents them really trying to understand difficult science. It prevents them really making the effort to understand the universe we find ourselves in. Instead they prefer to remain stupid and keep repeating, "Goddidit, Goddidit, Goddidit", as if that was an answer. Well God's going to be really impressed with that, isn't He.

You sound like you are reading from a book someone lent you. I suggest you return it immediately. It makes for very poor reading.

God: Tell me child, what did you do with the intelligence I gave you?

Child: I used it to believe you, to trust you, and to obey you so I could understand the purpose for which you created the universe.
[FONT=&quot]

God: And how did this help you understand the universe I put you in?

[/FONT] Child: It helped me to understand Who did it and why You did it. How You did it is not necessarily necessary since many of us have gone to heaven without knowing how. That fact that You did it is good enough for us.

 

[Nostromo]

Child: I used it to believe you

Well, not quite, you're believing Paul and the other authors.

God: And how did this help you understand the universe I put you in?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Child: It helped me to understand who did it and why you did it.

None of that is about the universe itself, rather God and God's motives.

Out of curiosity, why did God decide to create the universe, and where did you find out?

 

[Doveaman]

In which post did I mention inflation or dark energy? In which post did I say that I would address those topics?

Sounds like you are embarrassed and ashamed of your Big Bang deities, without which Big Bang cannot exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sounds like you are embarrassed and ashamed of your Big Bang deities, without which Big Bang cannot exist.

Sounds like he's sticking to the topic, which is what you should be doing.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Sounds like he's sticking to the topic, which is what you should be doing.

Wiccan Child, the does god-did-it constitute and explanation god. Wiccan Child-did-it, just like God who made him in His image. I am creative, because my Father is.........creative.

 

[kenblaster5000]

YouTube - Primus- Mr. Knowitall- Frizzle Fry

A tribute to me.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Sounds like you are embarrassed and ashamed of your Big Bang deities, without which Big Bang cannot exist.

Please address the content of my post, and please stay on topic.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Wiccan Child, the does god-did-it constitute and explanation god. Wiccan Child-did-it, just like God who made him in His image. I am creative, because my Father is.........creative.

Is this English? What does it mean? Could you please rephrase this post for clarity?

 

[kenblaster5000]

Is this English? What does it mean? Could you please rephrase this post for clarity?

Think hard my friend, but do not give yourself an aneurism. Wiccan child is the god of his own thread, and gets some enjoyment out of being in control of it and some self satisfaction that he has denied and others have denied the existence of God. While you look for the miscellaneous of the gaps, God is right here, because where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them. Doveaman will agree with that. I am simply saying that I am creative like my Father, the creative one, the creator. This is proof that I am made in the image of my Father. Ignoring what is right there in front of your face is just that, ignorance.

Ignoring the understanding of God equals ignoring the existence of God.

Plain and simple logic and you make it seem so hard and so full of ambition. God is simple, man makes it hard. Be blessed.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)"

In terms of science, "Goddidit" does nothing to further our understanding or knowledge of natural processes. It is intended, rather, to shift discussion from reason and fact, towards a religious paradigm.

The moment a person resorts to "_______ did it," it is no longer an evidence based scientific discussion. At this point it shifts into a metaphysical or religious discussion. It should also be stated that the ID movement is really not about science, but about religion. Their whole intent of discussing science is to convert a "non-believer" to Christ. So, keep in mind, they are professional evangelists first, and scientists second.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Think hard my friend, but do not give yourself an aneurism. Wiccan child is the god of his own thread, and gets some enjoyment out of being in control of it and some self satisfaction that he has denied and others have denied the existence of God. While you look for the miscellaneous of the gaps, God is right here, because where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them. Doveaman will agree with that. I am simply saying that I am creative like my Father, the creative one, the creator. This is proof that I am made in the image of my Father. Ignoring what is right there in front of your face is just that, ignorance.

Ignoring the understanding of God equals ignoring the existence of God.

Plain and simple logic and you make it seem so hard and so full of ambition. God is simple, man makes it hard. Be blessed.

You have taken scripture out of context.

emphasis mine

 

[Nostromo]

Plain and simple logic and you make it seem so hard and so full of ambition. God is simple, man makes it hard. Be blessed.

You wouldn't know plain and simple logic if it hit you in the face.

 

[BananaSlug]

Because I have a heart of flesh and not of stone.

In other words you were shown to be wrong about plasma cosmology.

That's because the Big Bang is impossible to cause.

Why?

You do not know why because it’s impossible to happen.

Why?

I have evidence God did it, and I know why.

What evidence do you have outside of the Bible?

Because you still believe the impossible "Bang" actually happened.

So if we don't know how something works, that means it doesn't exist?

Obviously you have no idea what "God did it " means and I believe you misunderstand me.

Um, no. You misquoted me, just you have done to many others in this thread and other threads. I thought bearing false witness was a sin?

There is nothing more foolish than replacing one invisible, undetected God by filling the gaps with three other invisible, undetected gods.

How could God be invisible and undetected when you claim to have evidence?

You could not even comprehend the One God of the gaps and now you’ve gone a giving yourself a whole three new gods of the gaps - the impossible “Bang” and his two invisible, dark assistants. The only scientific progress being made here is the progress of the gods.

Isn't it funny how often many Christians will make sweeping statements about our comprehension of God without even knowing why we are atheist. I wonder if they are embarrassed by the fact that we often know more about the Bible than they do.

Maybe it was because he believed the eternal God (who is without a beginning or end) did it.

Do you have a quote?

You cannot show me any of this dark, invisible stuff, or even demonstrate how this dark, invisible stuff moves things around in a science lab, but you expect me to believe that this “dark, invisible stuff did it” instead of “God did it”? I don't think so.

You don't have to believe it, you just need to do a better job arguing your point. The expansion of the universe via the "Big Bang" is the best model for explaining the data.

“God did it” makes more scientific sense to me.

Then certainly you wouldn't mind showing us some laboratory experiments that show empirical evidence that "God did it"?

For all we know it’s just a bunch of scientific junk.

So what are you going to do when we do discover what "dark matter" and "dark energy" is? Will you become an atheist or simply move the goalposts?

Well I also infer God did it based on observations of space.

Such as? How do we tell the difference between whether God did it or Brahma did it?

Are you going to make the argument that God didn’t do it because we cannot make it happen in a lab?

Isn't that the crux of what you are arguing? If you are not willing to apply what you are arguing to your beliefs, do not use it as an argument.

The original source is Jim Peebles from Princeton University. Pay him a visit if he is still there.

"Original source" as in the first paper or article that quote appeared in. I am highly suspicious that it is a mined quote.

“God did it” is the best we have.
“God did it” is the term we gave it.

So can you explain why "God did it" is a scientific explanation?

You just admitted to me you have no explanation of how “Dark Energy” did it, and now you are asking me for an explanation of how God did it.

Yes. You asked me and I said "we don't know". If you are so confident in your explanation then surely you must know how exactly God did it.

You should have tried to figure that out before you replaced “God did it” with “Dark Energy did it”. If you had, modern cosmology would not be in such a mess. You created the mess, you sort it out. That’s what you get for taking God out of the equation.

So you don't know how God did it? You are the one with all of the answers. Show us how it needs to be done. Our explanation works just fine, if it is wrong, it is YOUR job to fix it. Here is what I asked again:

So can "God did it" be shown in a laboratory setting? Can you give me empirical scientific evidence that God did in fact "do it"? How does "God did it" actually explain anything?

I'm assuming your refusal to answer the question means you really do not have an explanation. At least we were honest when we said "we don't know"...

An explanation that gives God the credit for His creation(s) explains everything because God did it all.

Did "Goddidit" give us modern medicine?
Did "Goddidit" give us the internal combustion engine?
Did "Goddidit" give us the internet?

The "explanation" may give God the credit, but does it actually tell you the why or how? If "Goddidit" is such a good explanation, would you get mad if your doctor used it to explain why you are sick? Would "Goddidit" tell you whether or not you needed some heartburn medication or open heart surgery?

 

[kenblaster5000]

You have taken scripture out of context.

emphasis mine

Matthew 18:19-20

19. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.

Amos 3:3

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

So then, another condition is that those two or three be agreed. Nice crocoduck.

 

[kenblaster5000]

You wouldn't know plain and simple logic if it hit you in the face.

I have been hit with a fist. I tell you that it was not rational, nor was it logical. I must admit, I am a bit abstract. God does not appreciate being put in a box. I let Him out.

 

[BananaSlug]

I have been hit with a fist. I tell you that it was not rational, nor was it logical. I must admit, I am a bit abstract. God does not appreciate being put in a box. I let Him out.

So sticking to a strict literal interpretation of Genesis= letting God out of the box?

 

[BananaSlug]

Think hard my friend, but do not give yourself an aneurism. Wiccan child is the god of his own thread, and gets some enjoyment out of being in control of it and some self satisfaction that he has denied and others have denied the existence of God. While you look for the miscellaneous of the gaps, God is right here, because where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them. Doveaman will agree with that.

Um, no. Whenever a creationist gets backed into a wall they tend to either try and get the thread off topic or just ignore the post. I have had many a post ignored by creationists here and I tend to view it as a victory. You are attempting to veer the conversation off topic and I am admittedly replying to you. So, do you believe "God did it" is a viable explanation? Before you answer, read my previous post in response to Doveaman.

I am simply saying that I am creative like my Father, the creative one, the creator. This is proof that I am made in the image of my Father.

So does this mean that people who are not creative are proof of the non-existance of God?

Plain and simple logic and you make it seem so hard and so full of ambition. God is simple, man makes it hard. Be blessed.

If God is so simple, then why all of the "God's ways are not our ways"?

 

[Doveaman]

First it's a singularity, then it's "nothing". The two are not the same.

I agree, that’s because in the beginning the singularity came from nothing, and the universe was formed.

If it didn’t come from nothing, then were did it come from, and what is the mechanism by which it came, and can you empirically demonstrate that it did come at all, or do I simply have to rely on faith in your words alone.

A Kruger-Dunning case with far too much confidence in his own opinion creates an imaginary book of the Bible to support his own view.

A Kruger-Dunning case with far too much confidence in his own opinion creates imaginary gods of the universe to support his own view.

Given that the singularity expanding was the start of time as we are familiar with it, it is not unreasonable to call it a t=0 point.

Given that the “t=0 point” of the singularity cannot be empirically demonstrated to exists, or to expand to become a universe 156 light-years in diameter, it is unreasonable to even consider it possible. This is nothing more than “hypothetical gods of the gaps” science.

I'd like for YOU to empirically demonstrate why nature can't make points

Can you show me a singularity in nature? or how nature can make them? and how they can expand to become a universe?

But to answer the point - you're wrong, again. Electrons and all other leptons are point particles. They do not have internal structure.

Electrons do not contain all the matter and energy in the universe, nor do they expand to become a universe. By “points” I mean from which universe(s) can emerge. Can you find such “points” in nature?

No, they have been well characterised, and make empirical predictions and are falsifiable.

Nonsense. They are ad hoc “gods of the gaps”. They were made up because you could not explain what you were observing, so the simple answer was that the “dark deities did it”.

And the time it takes in which to do that is irrelevant, just as it always has been for predictions in science.

God makes predictions that are falsifiable, by the way, so He must be true, or at least likely to be true, right?

And again, they are not gods. They are science. They meet all the characteristics of a scientific hypothesis. Scientists do not worship them.

They also meet the characteristics of the gods: They are invisible, they are undetected, they ignore or defy the laws of physics, and scientists put their faith in them for explanations. They are gods.