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

[serp777]

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.

Ok, well I have tons of examples of theists who use God as an explanation for morality, the laws of logic, etc. Look up Matt Slick, or Blake Guinta, or Frank Turek, or a variety of other theists who propose God as the best explanation. That's the general style of modern apologetics--to try and make Gods existence reasonable by making him the best explanation.

 

[serp777]

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

I don't accept your premise that this happened, and how are those explanations?

 

[serp777]

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

Magic has a general usage definition of being something supernatural that can cause anything without any rational justification. Magic is bound by almost nothing and can cause almost anything for almost any reason. Magic can create stuff, destroy stuff, affect people and otherwise affect the physical word in a variety of ways with a varying degree of power.

 

[serp777]

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.

God provides an explanation of mystery? That's just an assertion not an explanation. Magic provides an explanation of mystery, not God. See I can make assertions to.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

A very important point! To make mythology relevant to the lives of the people, it's definitely not uncommon for contemporary or historical references to be mixed in. That's part of what challenges some folks when approaching mythology, I think. Where's the line between what's historical and what isn't? Some are more concerned with that question than others. The prevailing religions in the West seem particularly concerned about that question, which is a bit foreign to me as someone outside of that Abrahamic sphere. I'm less concerned about the "truth" of a story than whether or not it is a good one.

 

[InChrist]

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?

Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing.
Isaiah 40:26

 

[sealchan]

God provides an explanation of mystery? That's just an assertion not an explanation. Magic provides an explanation of mystery, not God. See I can make assertions to.

I think we must first agree whether or not there are mysteries that can be and are worth describing. These mysteries then need to be shown as important.

One mystery I think that is relevant to today's democratic and post-Scientific Rational world is that of free will. Do you agree that the nature of free will is a mystery?

 

[Ostronomos]

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.

Explanations and causes must have an origin even if it is themselves that are the source. Reality is the cause of reality. Penrose and Hawking proved that time had a beginning in the early 60's. If reality is dual, spirit and matter, Cartesian duality, then the origin of the universe may have been an instance of something beyond the physical. I think your misconception lies in the fact that since we cannot see God, his mystery fills gaps (as in God of the gaps) and replaces knowledge with appeal to authority and education with ignorance. The origin of the universe is metaphysical, since science breaks down at that point. It has been said that the container of the physical must be non-physical, since it can exist in a higher dimension to accommodate the physical.

 

[leroy]

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.

Yes God could in theory be a valid explanation, I can think of two situations in which God can be used as an explanation:

1 If God is logically necessary: for example if you grant that the universe had a cause, then it follows logically and necessarily that the cause of the universe is something supernatural……these doesn’t drives you directly to God,(because something supernatural is not necessarily God) but at least it drives you a step closer to God.

*I define universe as: all the physical/natural world

2 If God is a better explanation than other naturalistic explanations: For example if the theist shows that God is a better explanation for the fine tuning of the universe than your favorite naturalistic explanation, then we are justified in proposing the existence of God.

One can use criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, less adhoc, consistency with previous knowledge, background knowledge etc. in order to determine which explanation is the best.

Perhaps it is impossible to prove or falsify the existence of God, but in theory you can show if there are Good reasons to accept or to deny the existence of God.

 

[leroy]

God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery.

That is an unfair accusation, and this accusation is applicable to all areas of knowledge, Newton solved the mystery of “why apples fall from trees” by appealing to other higher mystery “Gravity” and it was (and still is) perfectly valid to say “gravity causes apples to fall, but I don’t know where did gravity came from”

All mysteries are solved by appealing to other mysteries, all answers

 

[exchemist]

Ok, well I have tons of examples of theists who use God as an explanation for morality, the laws of logic, etc. Look up Matt Slick, or Blake Guinta, or Frank Turek, or a variety of other theists who propose God as the best explanation. That's the general style of modern apologetics--to try and make Gods existence reasonable by making him the best explanation.

I had to look up these bozos, never having heard of any of them. They all seem to belong to various forms of US extreme protestantism and believe in ID and related idiocies, so it's not surprising they hold the views you say they do.

I had mind more this sort of thing: equally modern, but a bit less, well, stupid:

Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists, Humanism and the Role of the Public Intellectual

 

[siti]

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

Well its a positive sign, I suppose, that you have managed to reject the implausible mythologies of bronze age peoples - a little more enlightenment and you'll be able to progress from the iron age too.

Christianity simply doesn't posit a world controlled by spirits.

It doesn't? Then what is the meaning of 1 John 5:19, John 4:24, 2 Corinthians 11:14, John 14:30, Ephesians 2:2...should I go on?

I agree, there's no Tlaloc demanding you kill your children in exchange for rain. No chariot riding deity pulling the sun across the sky, nor a Zeus to gallivant around, throw lighting bolts and impregnate attractive women.

No - God does all that on your behalf - John 3:16, Luke 1:35...etc.

Obviously, if one wants to know why it rains then "God" is not an answer. It's true in a sense but not in a useful sense. But God is an explanation for why the world exists...

No it isn't - it is not an explanation at all - at best its an unfounded assumption - at worst, its just swallowing a rehashed version of a selected one of the pagan deities you just rejected out of hand - warts and all.

...why there is a good...

No - not that either...it is a ridiculous idea to suggest that humans cannot behave morally without God telling them what to do - this is perhaps the most dangerous idea ever to have emerged from a human mind - and you need only pick up the newspaper on any random day to prove that.

...and how it relates to the final end of human beings

...and certainly not that!

Whether or not you reject that explanation is up to you, but it is in my view far more coherent that an infinite regress of stuff that expanded at some point and just is by sheer brute fact of it being so.

How so? How is the assumption that something we can neither see nor prove to exist (i.e. God) has "by sheer brute fact of it being so" existed eternally more coherent than the assumption that something we can both see and prove to exist (i.e. the universe) has "by sheer brute fact of it being so" existed eternally? If you can answer that (convincingly) I will gladly acknowledge that belief in the theistic deity of the Abrahamic faiths is rational and coherent.

 

[allfoak]

Magic has a general usage definition of being something supernatural that can cause anything without any rational justification. Magic is bound by almost nothing and can cause almost anything for almost any reason. Magic can create stuff, destroy stuff, affect people and otherwise affect the physical word in a variety of ways with a varying degree of power.

Not the best definition I have ever heard.
I think there may be a few old threads on the subject that defined it much better.
Suffice it to say for the moment that magick is turning thoughts into things.
This means that God thought everything into existence and maintains everything the same way, by thinking about it.
This means of course that God explains everything.

 

[Polymath257]

Not the best definition I have ever heard.
I think there may be a few old threads on the subject that defined it much better.
Suffice it to say for the moment that magick is turning thoughts into things.
This means that God thought everything into existence and maintains everything the same way, by thinking about it.
This means of course that God explains everything.

If the same 'explanation' works for both something and its opposite, it isn't a real explanation.

 

[osgart]

I think God is a tantalus dream, that reality makes sense and has eternal purpose. Growing up in religion people have a whole construct of reality that satisfies their every desire that life is meant to be. With God all their cares and loves can last forever.

Imo At its most realistic sense, God is some sort of wild intelligence, primitive crude and vast.

How did the universe gain a low entropy state? If existence is cyclical then we will reach maximum entropy and begin the buildup once again to low entropy again.

A change of One in one quintillion is awful precise fine tuning. And its yet to be ruled out that there was no ultimate beginning. But if i had to bet, i would say existence is cyclical, eternal, and everchanging. I dont think we exist in a one shot deal.

God could be anything in definition. But God must be bound to the universe.

 

[allfoak]

If the same 'explanation' works for both something and its opposite, it isn't a real explanation.

Something and it's opposite are the same thing.
One cannot exist without the other.
Once the two are made one then something new is born.
Think integration and wholeness.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?

God is not explaining. God is to be explained. There are so many ways that your imagine can tackle it that you realize it could work. God is a part of it. The question is whether the Universe from nothing or the Universe working with God.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Perhaps God is the Mystery? In the biblical story, God retreats further into the background the further we progress into the story, until we come to “God-as-Human” in the gospels. As we discover more about the world, the mystery retreats deeper, and is always elusive. We will never know “all there is to know.”

I don’t see that as “explanation,” though, so much as it is “a way of ascribing meaning to what we don’t fully understand.”

 

[David T]

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.

Kinda like random isnt it..

 

[Thinking Homer]

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 don't think any theist rejects the notion of using science to explain the nature of the universe, or its intricate physical laws on which it abides by. Yes, ancient pagan religions explained natural phenomenon using the concept of gods, such as Zeus sending down lightning and so on. Now with modern science, we know that this is caused by sudden electrostatic discharges that occur when conditions become favourable in the atmosphere. No theist denies this.

Science strives to answer some of the questions that lie in this natural world, whereas religion focuses more on the metaphysical world, which is outside the boundaries of science. The two need not be exclusive. Of course, that is not to say disputes do not occur from time to time, and I think it's worthwhile hearing the arguments from both sides.

Full video: