God can't explain anything and there's no rational way to demonstrate otherwise

[`mud]

Looking into the sky, especially in the night, one can't count the stars.
Most of those are galaxies, immensely larger than our solar system.
That system that is a tiny little part of our own galaxy, a small one.
Picture while peering into that sky, to the end of those trillions of stars,
how long it will be to get to the outer edge of those trillions of stars.
Now imagine the size of your `god` in comparison to those `stars`.
Now...can you really think that anything could be that large ?
Where would `he` sit in this `throne` of `his` omnipotense,
how immensely large would that `throne` have to be ?
And...are there stars and galaxies beyond this `god` in `his` `throne` ?
Where is this wonderful void of nothingness, into which everything fits ?
I wonder...if `he's` done creating...everything from nothing?

 

[Polymath257]

I think the issue becomes what it means for something to be an 'explanation'.

Generally, to have an 'explanation' of some phenomenon, you need some sort of physical law which, together with initial conditions, leads to the phenomenon in question.

So, for example, the phenomenon of temperature is 'explained' as the average kinetic energy of the molecules in your system. That reduces the concept of temperature to a more basic physical law (concerning kinetic energy).

Generally, the law that is used as an explanation has to be more fundamental in some sense than the phenomenon to be described: it has to be easier to model, possible to test, and also has to make a specific prediction of the phenomenon in question.

Another important aspect of an explanation: it should not be possible to use the same 'explanation' to both 'explain' why something happens or why it does not. So, saying that elves explain the freezing of water and that they also explain the non-freezing of water in the same situation just means that elves aren't an explanation at all.

So, let's apply this to whether 'God' can be an explanation. It is controversial (at least) whether 'God' is a more fundamental thing to use as an explanation, but it is clear that 'God' isn't something that is testable and predicts specific phenomena. It can also be used for both sides of an 'explanation' with no change in the argument (I lost the game because God wanted me to learn humility or I won the game because God wanted to encourage me). At no time is an actual mechanism or process given as a basis for the 'explanation': it is always 'just so'. No solid prediction of future phenomena is given.

So, it looks to me like 'God' is just not a suitable 'explanation' for anything at this point. if the 'God hypothesis' ever becomes testable, it might rise to being an explanation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Since pixies and magic would be contingent entities dependent upon God, it's really not equivalent. The belief in God (in the sense of classical theism) is the belief that there is an intelligent non-contingent source from which all reality is created and sustained. I understand that you reject that belief, but it's really not the same thing as appealing to either magic or pixies. Essentially, you've set up a stawman from the very outset.

But the idea remains that we can easily position "pixies" as the "intelligent non-contingent source from which all reality is created and sustained," can't we? And if not, then why not? How is it any different than claiming (with no evidence) that this same thing exists but calling it "God?"

 

[Fool]

People often try to give God as an explanation of things like morality, the beginning of the universe, etc. But i don't see how God explains anything or could possibly be an explanation. Its equivalent to "magic" or "pixies" did it. Furthermore there's no reasonable way to show that God is an explanation for anything. Matt DIllahunty made the great point that using God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery. If I say that dark matters exists because of super stuff, or some other undefined label, then you haven't explained a thing. Using God as an explanation is just like using super stuff as an explanation. if you did try to use that as an explanation, then there's no way to prove it because you can't demonstrate a causal link between something as ambiguous as God did it to some unexplained effect.

with love comes light, understanding.

 

[BilliardsBall]

People often try to give God as an explanation of things like morality, the beginning of the universe, etc. But i don't see how God explains anything or could possibly be an explanation. Its equivalent to "magic" or "pixies" did it. Furthermore there's no reasonable way to show that God is an explanation for anything. Matt DIllahunty made the great point that using God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery. If I say that dark matters exists because of super stuff, or some other undefined label, then you haven't explained a thing. Using God as an explanation is just like using super stuff as an explanation. if you did try to use that as an explanation, then there's no way to prove it because you can't demonstrate a causal link between something as ambiguous as God did it to some unexplained effect.

Fortunately, Jesus Christ did many miracles, fulfilled ancient prophecies, and rose from the dead, to show us God.

 

[robocop (actually)]

People often try to give God as an explanation of things like morality, the beginning of the universe, etc. But i don't see how God explains anything or could possibly be an explanation. Its equivalent to "magic" or "pixies" did it. Furthermore there's no reasonable way to show that God is an explanation for anything. Matt DIllahunty made the great point that using God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery. If I say that dark matters exists because of super stuff, or some other undefined label, then you haven't explained a thing. Using God as an explanation is just like using super stuff as an explanation. if you did try to use that as an explanation, then there's no way to prove it because you can't demonstrate a causal link between something as ambiguous as God did it to some unexplained effect.

I think God is a slightly easier explanation. It is a natural part to explaining the Universe.

 

[Quintessence]

Let's backtrack to some mythology 101:

• Mythological tales (including tales of the gods that "explain" things) works of literature. More specifically, mythologies are sacred stories. As such, they should be understood within a literary context (for example, it makes abundant use of hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, and so forth) and not treated as the equivalent of a science textbook or some literal account of things. Put another way, when mythos "explains" things it is not explaining things in the same way as your science textbook, and shouldn't be taken as such.
• Mythological tales are about bigger, deeper questions. They're really more about meaning and relationships. That's what they are explaining. Sure, you can take it all literally or like a science textbook, but that's missing the point. As an example, tales about the lineages of various gods are less about explaining how that god came to be than telling us about its nature and relationships. Whether or not you think a particular mythological tale does a good job of that is somewhat a function of personal taste and the skill of the bard telling the story.

The OP's questions and observations don't make any sense to me, given what mythology is and what it does.

 

[Apologes]

Any concrete examples?

 

[allfoak]

People often try to give God as an explanation of things like morality, the beginning of the universe, etc. But i don't see how God explains anything or could possibly be an explanation. Its equivalent to "magic" or "pixies" did it. Furthermore there's no reasonable way to show that God is an explanation for anything. Matt DIllahunty made the great point that using God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery. If I say that dark matters exists because of super stuff, or some other undefined label, then you haven't explained a thing. Using God as an explanation is just like using super stuff as an explanation. if you did try to use that as an explanation, then there's no way to prove it because you can't demonstrate a causal link between something as ambiguous as God did it to some unexplained effect.

Magic?
Once the definition of magic is understood, then the rest of what is in question can be known.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It was not the Christian who sacrificed children to ensure the rain.

No, they just symbolically kill and eat a man to avoid personal responsibility.

Paganism at its most basic is nothing more than the attempt to bargain with natural forces. And I reject this primitive worldview as much as you do.

You reject praying for certain natural things? A tornado is rampaging through the neighborhood and you don't want people to pray for it to go away?

I believe in a rational (but created) world that can be understood not in the capricious elemental spirits of the Greeks, Aztecs and Egyptians.

But Greeks and Egyptians influenced the bible's plot.

My point, is that I don't see any conflict between Christian theism and our growing understanding of the natural world since Christianity simply doesn't posit a world controlled by spirits.

God isn't a spirit?

It's nothing more than a variation of God as the man in the sky cliché. It implies a misrepresentation of what God is said to be. At least as far as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are concerned.

El lives on Mount Lel. It's completely different. I agree.

I agree, there's no Tlaloc demanding you kill your children in exchange for rain.

No, just to win battles or because He just wanted to see if you'd do it.

But that has never been the claim of any of the major monotheistic faiths.

Yahweh has claimed to do all those things, even impregnating some girl barely over puberty.

If God cannot be the explanation of the universe, what is the nature of god to which you are describing?

There are many types of gods. Some would be like "God of that tree over there" or "God who showed us how to cook meat". I think , out of all the gods, cultural heroes/leaders are the best explanation for the god concept.

As such, they should be understood within a literary context (for example, it makes abundant use of hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, and so forth) and not treated as the equivalent of a science textbook or some literal account of things.

Yeah, but let's say you're telling a story of Aprhodite/Venus having an affair with Ares/Mars. It's a good story but it could also be a dramatic retelling of some event that happened with the planets. We shouldn't confuse myths with science, but I think it's useful to suggest they might hint at political or scientific events, like how the story of Aphrodite's appearance in Greece might be a story about the cult of Ishtar or whatever coming across the Mediterranean.

 

[Jumi]

I feel like god is just an excuse for not knowing, and that it's a cop out move to explain what a person doesn't understand or never understood, or never bothered to try to comprehend in the first place..

Or god is used to justify 'low brow' behavior.

For some it is like that, no doubt. But are we going to generalize from those?

 

[Cacotopia]

When someone says "god works in mysterious ways" I always assume they didn't have anything better to say.

 

[serp777]

Let's backtrack to some mythology 101:

• Mythological tales (including tales of the gods that "explain" things) works of literature. More specifically, mythologies are sacred stories. As such, they should be understood within a literary context (for example, it makes abundant use of hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, and so forth) and not treated as the equivalent of a science textbook or some literal account of things. Put another way, when mythos "explains" things it is not explaining things in the same way as your science textbook, and shouldn't be taken as such.
• Mythological tales are about bigger, deeper questions. They're really more about meaning and relationships. That's what they are explaining. Sure, you can take it all literally or like a science textbook, but that's missing the point. As an example, tales about the lineages of various gods are less about explaining how that god came to be than telling us about its nature and relationships. Whether or not you think a particular mythological tale does a good job of that is somewhat a function of personal taste and the skill of the bard telling the story.

The OP's questions and observations don't make any sense to me, given what mythology is and what it does.

I literally gave examples for the things that are generally explained by God. I'm talking about facts about the universe clearly--e.g. the origin of the universe, morality, etc. But i'm not even sure if mythological Gods explain any meaning. I might add that many people do try to use God as an explanation for physical facts, so I do take it as such.

They're really more about meaning and relationships. That's what they are explaining. Sure, you can take it all literally or like a science textbook, but that's missing the point. As an example, tales about the lineages of various gods are less about explaining how that god came to be than telling us about its nature and relationships.

Ok well the story can be an explanation, but the Gods themselves don't serve as an explanation. You're equivocating here between explanations using a story/literary work and explanation based on God.

Whether or not you think a particular mythological tale does a good job of that is somewhat a function of personal taste and the skill of the bard telling the story.

Yeah, again, in this case the bard's story is the explanation.

 

[serp777]

Looking into the sky, especially in the night, one can't count the stars.
Most of those are galaxies, immensely larger than our solar system.
That system that is a tiny little part of our own galaxy, a small one.
Picture while peering into that sky, to the end of those trillions of stars,
how long it will be to get to the outer edge of those trillions of stars.
Now imagine the size of your `god` in comparison to those `stars`.
Now...can you really think that anything could be that large ?
Where would `he` sit in this `throne` of `his` omnipotense,
how immensely large would that `throne` have to be ?
And...are there stars and galaxies beyond this `god` in `his` `throne` ?
Where is this wonderful void of nothingness, into which everything fits ?
I wonder...if `he's` done creating...everything from nothing?

Those are some nice assertions, but how are they explanations of anything?

 

[serp777]

I think God is a slightly easier explanation. It is a natural part to explaining the Universe.

No it isn't. God is very unnatural. He is completely independent, generally, from the natural realm. And an assertion is not an explanation, what exactly is God explaining?

 

[Cacotopia]

I think the OP meant that when god is used to explain things, there is no actual explaining being done.

Deep thoughts:

Daughter: Why does it rain?

Father: Because God is crying.

Daughter: Why is God crying?

Father: Probably because of something you did.

Rain is still not explained.

 

[serp777]

I think the issue becomes what it means for something to be an 'explanation'.

Generally, to have an 'explanation' of some phenomenon, you need some sort of physical law which, together with initial conditions, leads to the phenomenon in question.

So, for example, the phenomenon of temperature is 'explained' as the average kinetic energy of the molecules in your system. That reduces the concept of temperature to a more basic physical law (concerning kinetic energy).

Generally, the law that is used as an explanation has to be more fundamental in some sense than the phenomenon to be described: it has to be easier to model, possible to test, and also has to make a specific prediction of the phenomenon in question.

Another important aspect of an explanation: it should not be possible to use the same 'explanation' to both 'explain' why something happens or why it does not. So, saying that elves explain the freezing of water and that they also explain the non-freezing of water in the same situation just means that elves aren't an explanation at all.

So, let's apply this to whether 'God' can be an explanation. It is controversial (at least) whether 'God' is a more fundamental thing to use as an explanation, but it is clear that 'God' isn't something that is testable and predicts specific phenomena. It can also be used for both sides of an 'explanation' with no change in the argument (I lost the game because God wanted me to learn humility or I won the game because God wanted to encourage me). At no time is an actual mechanism or process given as a basis for the 'explanation': it is always 'just so'. No solid prediction of future phenomena is given.

So, it looks to me like 'God' is just not a suitable 'explanation' for anything at this point. if the 'God hypothesis' ever becomes testable, it might rise to being an explanation.

A brilliant post. I would submit it would be impossible for God to become testable because there's no mechanism for determining the difference between unusual things that are naturally caused and unusually things that are supernaturally caused. God also can't serve as an explanation because he, himself is not tied to anything that we understand. Explaining the average kinetic energy of molecules in your system by magicstuff is completely irrelevant because we have no idea what magicstuff is.

Generally, to have an 'explanation' of some phenomenon, you need some sort of physical law which, together with initial conditions, leads to the phenomenon in question.

Well, I would also say that an explanation can be valid in a variety of contexts beyond the physical as long as it gives a deeper understanding of something. We explain things in terms of other things we understand, so we can explain philosophical concepts, for example, with other things we understand--E.G. an explanation of some type of government, or something else abstract. I argue that God can't be an explanation for this as well.

 

[exchemist]

Simply asserting he can doesn't make it so. Its on the same level as magic did it. I submit it isn't an explanation. What does God explain exactly?

Give me anything that is explained by God. Seriously just give me anything you want. ANd asserting that God sustains reality and gives us morals isn't an explanation just forewarning.

I think your premise is misconceived, actually. I don't believe most people use the idea of God as an explanation of anything. Seeing religion as a sort of alternative (and hence rival) explanation of the world to the one that science offers is the error that people like Dawkins seem so often to make.

I suspect most people's ideas of God are far more to do with giving them, as individuals, a sense of purpose in the world, and a feeling that there is some sort of meaning in life and existence. In Christianity for instance, the core of it is the life, teaching and example of Christ, as told in the gospels. There is little here in terms of explanations of the world, but a great deal about how to live and the comfort to be had from belief in a loving God.

 

[sealchan]

People often try to give God as an explanation of things like morality, the beginning of the universe, etc. But i don't see how God explains anything or could possibly be an explanation. Its equivalent to "magic" or "pixies" did it. Furthermore there's no reasonable way to show that God is an explanation for anything. Matt DIllahunty made the great point that using God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery. If I say that dark matters exists because of super stuff, or some other undefined label, then you haven't explained a thing. Using God as an explanation is just like using super stuff as an explanation. if you did try to use that as an explanation, then there's no way to prove it because you can't demonstrate a causal link between something as ambiguous as God did it to some unexplained effect.

But you have hit the nail on the head for why God can provide an explanation...of mystery. Now you just need to realize how important it is for human beings to recognize where mystery plays a role and how to relate to it. That is the great practical (psychological) value of God and mystery.

 

[serp777]

You're missing the point. If I get to construct god I can make him explain anything I like, and as I said, you might not think much of the explanation or even like it, but god doesn't much care about your petty human opinion because that's how I constructed him.
Consider: I get to decide everything about god, just as when sitting before a blank sheet of paper I get to decide everything about the picture I draw on it. Get it?

.

.

First of all I was in fact referring to modern definitions of God that are generally used. So if you define God to mean kinetic energy, then sure God can be an explanation for temperature. But thats really just playing with words. You can redefine something to be anything you want and thus invalidate any argument by just changing the standard definition.

But i'm still asking for any explanation, even from a custom God. Give me an explanation of anything, because God is generally a panacea for everything and therefore explains nothing. I can also construct magic to supposedly "explain" anything, but that doesn't make it an actual explanation.