Haha don't worry, it's the topic of the thread. I just went on a tangent.
Why does they need to be demonstrable to be considered valid explanations? It's not a criticism, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.
Merry Christmas
Well, it occurs to me that I may not be using the word
valid the way I ought to in a discussion on logic.
Perhaps I should say 'goddidit' doesn't constitute a
useful explanation.
Let me work thru this a little. (That is, I'm thinking as I type.)
I suppose for any given event, a being can be posited to have anything to do with it--say Agent X. In some sense, we could posit Agent X for anything from causing the sun to rise to causing an uncaused quantum event. If Agent X is a non-sentient physical event and can be measured, etc., then it is not particularly unreasonable to posit it.
Once, however, we suppose Agent X to be a rational sentient/sapient being then we have to wonder how we are going to test that.
Using the casual term 'valid' (as opposed to the formal term 'valid'), I wonder why we should consider anything valid that doesn't even have the potential of being measured, tested, evaluated, etc.
I guess that in the same way a syllogism can be valid even if the premises are untestable, 'goddidit' is valid. But, my gut reaction is 'so what'. The premise, 'god', is untestable. The proposition yields no useful information.
In a science forum 'goddidit' is invalid, regardless of the precise definition of valid from the field of logic. We expect science and rational investigation into events and causes to yield useful information. Unless we can use 'goddidit' to move our investigation forward, it is invalid.
In some sense, I propose that there are (at least) 3 uses of the word
valid: 1) from the field of logic, 2) casual everyday usage, and 3) the sense where a premise/proposition/datum is useful.
'goddidit' may be valid in the sense of #1, but a scientist's reaction should be 'so what'. One cannot use that information to learn more about what it is you are studying. I suspect that there exists
no circumstances where 'goddidit' is ever verifiable. To use 'goddidit' as an explanation is to cede the debate.
Sorry for rambling. I'm watching TV in a hotel room with my family all about ...
Oh, and Merry Christmas