Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

I disagree. If Satan wanted the glory, he would invent a religion that exalted him and shunned the true God. He might invent a messiah. He might call this religion Christianity.

The Bible may convince its readers to accept Christ, but how do we know that the mass worship of Christ isn't antithetical to the real God? Perhaps the 'real' religion is Hinduism (say), and Christianity is just Satan's ploy to get people away from this true faith.

In other words, Satan's greatest trick is not to convince people that he doesn't exist, but to convince people that he's God.

Then where is his throne?

If there's no Godhead to keep him in check, and he is the sole omnipotent potentate of the universe, why would he write a book to tell us how he would like to be like Someone higher than himself?

You should be able to pick up the phone right now and call his office, should you not?

ETA: Not to mention having his Saturnalia party crashed by Jesus' birthday.

 

[Tinker Grey]

With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question. If Satan did 'it', then doesn't that constitute an explanation? At the end of the day, if Satan did indeed do it, then how can we say that "Satandidit" is not an explanation?

The problem is that there is no end of the day.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then where is his throne?

If there's no Godhead to keep him in check, and he is the sole omnipotent potentate of the universe, why would he write a book to tell us how he would like to be like Someone higher than himself?

Father of lies, remember, AV -- Besides, everyone knows it's the guy behind the throne who weilds the real power.

The poor schmoe sitting on the throne is often just a figurehead.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The problem is that there is no end of the day.

Well, there is, in a sense: either Satan did it, or he didn't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then where is his throne?

He's the master of lies: he's constructed everything perfectly. For his own, inscrutable reasons, he's convinced the majority of humans that he is God (i.e., the being whom Christians worship is, in fact, a malevolent and non-divine being, and works against the true God).

All conjecture, mind.

If there's no Godhead to keep him in check, and he is the sole omnipotent potentate of the universe, why would he write a book to tell us how he would like to be like Someone higher than himself?

I couldn't begin to speculate . Perhaps he's insane.

 

[AV1611VET]

Father of lies, remember, AV -- Besides, everyone knows it's the guy behind the throne who weilds the real power.

The poor schmoe sitting on the throne is often just a figurehead.

If this is your best answer, I'll stick with the Bible being pure truth.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If this is your best answer, I'll stick with the Bible being pure truth.

Cool. I'll stick with reality.

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

If this is your best answer, I'll stick with the Bible being pure truth.

Would anything actually persuade you to think otherwise. I doubt it.

 

[Meshach]

Cool. I'll stick with reality.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Totally agree.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If this is your best answer, I'll stick with the Bible being pure truth.

Of course you will, AV -- exactly as its author wants you to do.

After all, the alternative is thinking that the devil is smarter than you -- and what good would it do you to think that?

 

[Meshach]

Totally agree.

Totally agree, but I assure you not totally understanding.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Totally agree, but I assure you not totally understanding.

I understand just fine thank you. I just have a different opinion, an enlightened one you might say.

 

[CoderHead]

Bad - Satan did it.

Can Satan do something that God doesn't allow?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, there is, in a sense: either Satan did it, or he didn't.

I know you guys have been all over this, so I'm reluctant to start it up.

Goddidit or Satandidit might be an explanation if we could reach the point where either could be demonstrated.

As it is, I can't imagine how either of those propositions could be demonstrated. And two, those that use those arguments use them to avoid the hard work of figuring out what actually happened.

I don't think either of those could be considered an explanation unless demonstratable. I could agree that those propositions are potential explanation. But, I don't think that even in principle, that they can be demonstrated.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know you guys have been all over this, so I'm reluctant to start it up.

Haha don't worry, it's the topic of the thread. I just went on a tangent.

Goddidit or Satandidit might be an explanation if we could reach the point where either could be demonstrated.

As it is, I can't imagine how either of those propositions could be demonstrated. And two, those that use those arguments use them to avoid the hard work of figuring out what actually happened.

I don't think either of those could be considered an explanation unless demonstratable. I could agree that those propositions are potential explanation. But, I don't think that even in principle, that they can be demonstrated.

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

 

[Tinker Grey]

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

 

[Doveaman]

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.

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?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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?

There's a difference between unfalsified, and unfalsifiable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Ah, now you're thinking with portals .