Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Freodin]

Could Agent X be Dark Matter which has not been measured, tested, or evaluated? Would Dark Matter constitute an explanation if it was Agent X?

Not quite.

The problem as I see it is not the "god" part, but the "did it". The question that has to be asked in this regard is "did what?"... and here "god" always faces the problem that Tinker Grey pointed out... it is not testable.

In fact, it is not even definable.

We know what Dark Matter "does"... it excerts a gravitational effect on other matter. But what God "does" is so... undefined... that it is unusable in every potential scientific evaluation.

 

[Doveaman]

We know what Dark Matter "does"... it excerts a gravitational effect on other matter. But what God "does" is so... undefined... that it is unusable in every potential scientific evaluation.

So scientists say the gravitational effects are cased by the 'undetectable' dark matter. Creationists say the Universe effects were caused by the 'undetectable' God.

Undetectable dark matter did it - Gravity.

Undetectable God did it - Universe.

What's the difference?

 

[MoonLancer]

So scientists say the gravitational effects are cased by the 'undetectable' dark matter. Creationists say the Universe effects were caused by the 'undetectable' God.

Undetectable dark matter did it - Gravity.

Undetectable God did it - Universe.

What's the difference?

The difference is dark matter has a miserable effect where in all other cases things said to be caused by god have been unmeasurable. can you provide a miserable effect of god?

This is just a god of the gaps argument.

 

[Freodin]

So scientists say the gravitational effects are cased by the 'undetectable' dark matter. Creationists say the Universe effects were caused by the 'undetectable' God.

Undetectable dark matter did it - Gravity.

Undetectable God did it - Universe.

What's the difference?

What "causes" gravitational effects? From all that we know, have tested, experienced, observed... it is matter. Matter causes gravity. It is what it "does".

What does God "do" to cause a universe? How do you cause a universe?

 

[Doveaman]

What "causes" gravitational effects? From all that we know, have tested, experienced, observed... it is matter. Matter causes gravity. It is what it "does".

It must be gravity, therefore it must be matter. I get it. Gravity rules.

What does God "do" to cause a universe? How do you cause a universe?

Some believe He did it with a big bang, then He gave it over to gravity, so now gravity rules the universe.

I wonder if dark matter might be God in dark mode generating the gravity. That would constitute an explanation, wouldn't it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I wonder if dark matter might be God in dark mode generating the gravity. That would constitute an explanation, wouldn't it?

I wasn't aware God had a "dark mode."

 

[Doveaman]

I wasn't aware God had a "dark mode."

"With God all things are possible" - Matt 19:26.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"With God all things are possible" - Matt 19:26.

Even square circles?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even square circles?

I believe so.

According to a book by, I believe it was Dr. Robert A. Morey, you can demonstrate how to turn a basketball inside-out without breaking a seam, using six (?) dimensions of space.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe so.

According to a book by, I believe it was Dr. Robert A. Morey, you can demonstrate how to turn a basketball inside-out without breaking a seam, using six (?) dimensions of space.

Yea, but mathematicians have also shown you can break apart a ball, and put it back together in such a way that you end up with two balls, each the same size as the original ball, and all three balls are completely solid.

Infinity is very annoying like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yea, but mathematicians have also shown you can break apart a ball, and put it back together in such a way that you end up with two balls, each the same size as the original ball, and all three balls are completely solid.

Infinity is very annoying like that.

Then square circles would be no problem with God.

It's interesting that on a merry-go-round, the outer horses move faster than the inner ones, yet both remain parallel.

 

[Skaloop]

Then square circles would be no problem with God.

It's interesting that on a merry-go-round, the outer horses move faster than the inner ones, yet both remain parallel.

Interesting, I suppose, but not exactly brain-exploding to explain. The outer horse goes faster, yes, but it also travels farther. So the time it needs to travel a longer distance is exactly the same as the time needed for the inner horse to travel a shorter distance. t=d/v
​

Not exactly rocket surgery...

 

[Freodin]

It must be gravity, therefore it must be matter. I get it. Gravity rules.

I don´t think you "get it". To start with, you turned around (deliberately and falsely, in order to make up a strawman) the line of reasoning. There is no need to conclude "force -> must be gravity -> therefore matter!"
You know that, and deliberately use that to discredit my post, which did not imply any of that kind.

Rather: "matter -> gravity". IF there is "Dark Matter", THEN it will excert gravity. This is the correct line of reasoning. "Matter -> gravity"... and nothing necessarily beyond that. There is no reason to conclude "Matter -> singing and jigsaw puzzles" or "Matter -> virgin births" or anything like that.

Matter means gravity, inevitably. This is what matter "does"... and you can reduce it to the simple maths of Newton´s laws. It is describable and definable in very basic terms and maths.

Some believe He did it with a big bang, then He gave it over to gravity, so now gravity rules the universe.

I wonder if dark matter might be God in dark mode generating the gravity. That would constitute an explanation, wouldn't it?

Still no. It does not explain what he "does" at all.

See, there is a nail in the wall. How was it "done"?

I "did" it with a hammer! Does that constitute an explanation? Well, it does... but only because you know - have a formed image in your head - of how one "does" a nail in the wall with a hammer. You know, by experience and observation, that I swung the hammer, hit the nail and drove it into the wall. Basic physics. Newtonian laws. Simple terms and maths.

But such an image, an idea does not exist at all in regard to God "doing" it.

If I told you that I "did" that nail-wall thing with a hammer... by having the hammer boiled in white wine at midnight while chanting our national anthem backwards... would "I did it with a hammer" still constitute an explanation?

 

[birdan]

I wonder if dark matter might be God in dark mode generating the gravity. That would constitute an explanation, wouldn't it?

No, that would constitute an answer, not an explanation. "God did it" provides an answer for everything, and an explanation of nothing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, that would constitute an answer, not an explanation. "God did it" provides an answer for everything, and an explanation of nothing.

Too true

Consider the following exchange between two hypothetical detectives at a murder scene:

Detective 1: "There are no signs of forced entry; all the dorrs and windows are intact. And there don't appear to be any signs of a struggle. That would indicate that the victim knew his attacker, let them in, and trusted them enough to turn his back to them. We should probably focus our investigation on the wife, who had a key to the house and access to the murder weapon.

Detective 2: "Goddidit."

 

[Doveaman]

There is no need to conclude "force -> must be gravity -> therefore matter!"
Rather: "matter -> gravity". IF there is "Dark Matter", THEN it will excert gravity.

“IF” there is “Dark Matter”, then, yes.

But if there is no dark matter, then gravity wouldn’t constitute an explanation since there is no matter present to exert it.

See, there is a nail in the wall. How was it "done"?

I "did" it with a hammer! Does that constitute an explanation? Well, it does... but only because you know - have a formed image in your head - of how one "does" a nail in the wall with a hammer. You know, by experience and observation, that I swung the hammer, hit the nail and drove it into the wall.

Okay, but there is no ‘known’ scientific experience or observation where gravity is exerted apart from the presence of real matter, therefore it must first be established that dark matter is indeed real matter before we can offer an explanation that the effects we are observing is indeed gravity.

To conclude that there is gravity without first establishing that there is real matter (which experience tells us must be present to exert gravity) is to make an assumption with no empirical evidence to support it. I can also assume God did it.

But such an image, an idea does not exist at all in regard to God "doing" it.

I get the impression that some forms of science is not about what is necessarily true, but about what is assumed to be true based on pass observations and experiences. If it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. If it quacks like gravity, then it is gravity, even though the presence of real matter has not been empirically verified to cause it to quack.

I don't think that gravity constitutes an explanation if it has not been confirmed that there is real matter present to exert it. Hypothetical dark matter has never been observed to exert gravity, and it never will.

 

[AV1611VET]

Detective 1: "There are no signs of forced entry; all the dorrs and windows are intact. And there don't appear to be any signs of a struggle. That would indicate that the victim knew his attacker, let them in, and trusted them enough to turn his back to them. We should probably focus our investigation on the wife, who had a key to the house and access to the murder weapon.

Your scenario is missing something.

A note detailing who did it, how he did it, when he did it, where he did it, why he did it, what order he did it in, and who the eyewitnesses are.

The fact that you left this out shows your lack of understanding, not ours.

 

[Skaloop]

Your scenario is missing something.

A note detailing who did it, how he did it, when he did it, where he did it, why he did it, what order he did it in, and who the eyewitnesses are.

The fact that you left this out shows your lack of understanding, not ours.

Except your note says that the killer broke in by shattering a window, got into a huge struggle with the victim, didn't know the victim, killed them just two seconds ago, and killed them with a gun when there are only knife wounds on the body and a bloody knife laying next to him.

Your note in no way resembles the obvious evidence about the what actually happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except your note says that the killer broke in by shattering a window, got into a huge struggle with the victim, didn't know the victim, killed them just two seconds ago, and killed them with a gun when there are only knife wounds on the body and a bloody knife laying next to him.

Your note in no way resembles the obvious evidence about the what actually happened.

Um ... no.

We have specific persons, places, and events mentioned --- in Writing.

Making it look like a crime scene is poor judgment, but if you want to go that route, God has pleaded "guilty" --- in Writing.

 

[Skaloop]

Um ... no.

We have specific persons, places, and events mentioned --- in Writing.

Making it look like a crime scene is poor judgment, but if you want to go that route, God has pleaded "guilty" --- in Writing.

So what? Specific doesn't make it truth. In fact, people trained to detect lying in criminal suspects actually look for specifics because they tend to indicate deception.

If god has pleaded guilty (in line with the crime scene analogy), he's pleaded guilty to a crime that never occurred. He said he broke in through a window, but no windows were broken. He said there was a big struggle, but there isn't so much as a knocked-over vase. He said he shot the victim, but the only wounds on the body are from a knife. He said he did it two seconds ago, but the cops have been studying the scene for hours. What the note says and what basic observation shows happened are totally disparate.

He can mention all the specifics he wants, but that still doesn't mean that the events he mentions actually happened the way he describes.

Really, specifics are meaningless. It was 8:34 this morning, the temperatutre was 37 degrees, I was watching channel 45 on my Sony TV, when all of a sudden my neighbour from apartment 110 (two doors to the left from mine) entered wearing a blue shirt, stonewashed jeans, bunny slippers, and a Santa hat. Then, with a twinkle in his blue eyes, and the stench of 10-year old scotch on his breath, he laughed three times, said the string of digits 44458583142034128, then vanished before my eyes.

Lots of specifics there, but it's still garbage. Some of the things I mentioned are true, but that doesn't extend to the entire story, despite the specifics. And those specifics don't lend any credence to his having disappeared.