"Goditit" also known as "God did it" responses are not inherently irrational.
Offline Rational argument (rational: meaning, exercising reason and/or logic) for God did it response:
"How did X happen?":
Sufficient condition = "God did it"
"How did he do it?":
Because God is able to do anything.
Sufficient condition = God
Necessary condition = able to do anything
"How do you know he can?":
I don't need to "know" something to be practicing rationality or logic. To be rational, as I understand it.. I just need to have a logical construct, or, one that is not illogical (logically contradictory).
If you accept these relationships (between necessary and sufficient conditions) as valid.. then, it would seem, you are agreeing that it is logical. (granted of course, you must have the same understanding as I have stated of rationality and logic. Mainly: if you what is logical is rational)
Whether it is "plausible", I believe, is another issue.
Anyways.. I'm not stating that I believe aforementioned construct.. just-- presenting it for response. 
- Login to post comments
I don't think "Because God is able to do anything." is an answer to the question of "How did he do it?". That would be an answer if the question was "how is it that he was able to do it?" or "how was that possible?".
An answer to the second question would be a description of the process. Since nobody can observe god, saying god did something has no explanatory power. It's basically saying a force that we can't observe created it using a process that we cant observe. It is a complete waste of time. Just another way of saying I don't know.
If that's rational then it's rational for me to say "My penis did it".
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
See.. this seems to be where I keep getting caught up with people.
How I understand reason, and therefore rationality (I think I could make a fairly strong, objective argument), is that it does not make any objective standards about what can be accepted as an assumption other than that it cannot be contradictory to an earlier accepted assumption.
As for your contention with my 2.), you are right. Could I rephrase it and say. 2.) He did it because, as God, he can do anything, and he willed to do this.
This number 2 would be split up into a couple more Necessary and Sufficient conditions..
Sufficient: God can do anything.
Sufficient: He wanted to do it.
Sufficient: God does what he wants.
Necessary: He did it.
As for the next statement.
And it is saying basically saying that a force we cannot [now] observe using a process we cannot [now] observe.
It is another way of saying I don't know. But I'm not talking about knowing or not knowing now. The thread is about rationality. And rationality.. under its objective definition (if I understand it correctly).. is about the exercising of reason. Logic.. in this case.
It is rational for you to say that.. if.. you also assume that your "penis can do it" and your penis wanted to do it at one point in time.. and.. that your penis can exist apart from your.. or.. that you have existed forever.. and any number of other assumptions.
At which point and time I would say.. prove it.
And you would say.. "I don't want to" or "it lost it's power" or etc etc etc.
At which point I would ask another question and another question.. at which point you would not be able to answer.. or create a perfectly rational set of of not contradictory assumptions about time space and your actions here on earth in accordance which those assumptions.. etc etc etc.
It's very hard not to be contradictory when you say your penis did it.
And if you contend to state that and wish to argue from that point of view.. you might see why. But until I can point out how you are being illogical or irrational-- I cannot deem you to be irrational unless I apply my assumptions onto you.
Do you wish to argue that your penis did it?
But.. I was mainly asserting that the "God did it" could be a rational (logical) response.
Since.. at this time, within the context of this thread, I haven't claimed any other assumptions about the nature of God.
Begs the question.
Anway, there's a more significant problem with 'goddidit' - it's an explanation that explains nothing, and therefore, it serves to mask our ignorance.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
What question? Oh.. heh, and it was semi reformulated because G did point out a valid lacking.
Sorry. "Begs the question" usually has a question following it, at least in my experience. I'm not use to it being used in this way. Heh. Sorry once again.
Like I stated to G's response. It only goes so far as to explain things within it's construct of reasoning (mainly.. all those assumptions, implied or explicit, that make up the argument).
But that is not the same as saying "it explains nothing."
or else, it would seem, I could also say that science explains nothing.
(For.. it to, only works within the same context of a set of assumptions that the creators of it's methodology chose to assume for their purpose: Those assumptions being, concepts about temporarility, the limits of what can be used as evidence, concepts about reality in general.)
Scientific methods are self contained with the rational assumptions (albeit, unproveable.. unless you choose to accept what it itself claims to be sufficient and necessary conditions of proof.) it makes. Even as this one seems to be self contained as well within the rational assumptions it makes (albeit, unproveable.. unless you accept what it itself claims to be sufficient and necessary conditions of proof.)
If you consider one to explain nothing because it can only 'self prove' itself.. how is the other any different?
Oh.. and.. just in case you are considering take this down the road of what is self-evident and what is not. I would contest that the only thing that is self-evident (self evident being what is "necessarily sufficient"
is "I think, therefore I am"-- there are some inferences you can make from this.. to come up with other necessarily conditions-- but no other necessary sufficient ones.
And if one is irrelevant
I believe "Begs the question" refers to the begging the question fallacy
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
So I can say "Thoth did it!".. and thus disprove God's existance?
If someone showed up around here that had never seen a car before, and I took them for a ride, they might ask "What makes your car go?" If I point to the gas pedal and say "I press on that.", is that a valid explaination of what makes the car go?
Okay.. I've read it. So.. my response.
Begging the Question is an informal fallacy which uses a circular argument.
Sufficient: Begging the question
Necessary: circular argument.
This is not to say that all circular arguments are illogical. The link you sent me to makes sure to clarify that idea.
On a purely logical level (if I'm understanding its explanation correctly) you can argue in a circle that states.
If a then b. If b then c. If c then d. If d then a.
It only because "Begging the Question" when your in a public forum.. arguing in front of a group of people who have a certain set of assumptions already held.
In this scenario of a public forum.. to ask them to conceed an assumption that is the very thing you wish to infer.. that is "Begging the Question."
However.. I am not trying to infer any particular thing. Nor am I restricted to those assumptions I can assume you make. I'm only limited by the limits of rationality (logic).
"Circular reasoning" as it is so many times uses, is to point out that this sort of argument would not work to convince anyone who does not choose to first accept your argument, that the argument is true.
It does not state that it is a illogical in and of itself as say.. if I said.
If a then not b.
If b then a.
b
___
By the way.. thanks for the link. Now I won't be confused again.
To me. Yes.
To him. Perhaps not. Depends on what sort of assumptions he holds in the first place.
But then again.. what he accepts as logically valid, in accordance with the assumptions he holds, does not relegate a necessity towards reality.
Reality (in the absolute sense, not what you assume to be absolute) is real no matter what assumptions you hold to be true.
Wow.
I know.
But thats not really an argument.. is it?
"Begs the question" is a reference to a circular logic fallacy.
'Begging the question' is a reference to circular logic, it doesn't necessarily reference a question, it references any argument that uses its own conclusion as a premise.
Here:
Begging the Question
Any argument wherein the conclusion to an argument is held to support the premise just as the premises are held to support the conclusion. In short: using a conclusion as a premise.
What you mean to say is "I don't know what a begging the question fallacy is". That's ok. Now you know what I mean.
So, here is your argument:
First, notice that you don't actually answer "HOW' god did anything. You simply assert that 'god can do anything' definitionally.
Second,your argument uses its own conclusion as a premise: God did it, because god can do it. So not only does your argment not explain anything, it simply asserts from a circle.
There's nothing within its 'construct of reasoning" that provides any explanation: it merely begs the question that 'god can do anything' and then asserts 'god did it'. In fact, if you ponder the point a second, you'll see that the definiton works by simply eradicating the "how question' entirely (!), by postulating a 'being' without limits that can simply do anything. You could rewrite 'god' as 'magic' or 'it just happens'.
So, at no point does it say HOW god did it. Answering a HOW question involves giving an explanation, not just a name of something simply defined as "answer". You see, that's the fallacy of labeling - the mistaken assumption that giving something a name is giving an explanation.
A scientific explanation provides an explanation... it doesn't just say "nature did it'. Answering the question of HOW requires that you provide a means or an explanation.
Yes. It. Is. It explains nothing. Literally.
Whatever set of assumptions it makes is moot, as the statement "god did it' says nothing about "how" anything was accomplished - it merely asserts that there is something that can do anything, and this 'something' did it.
It doesn't explain how it did it, you see.
You've got to be kidding. Just because both science and saying 'god did it' start out with assumptions does not make them equitable!
Merely defining 'god' as 'something that can do anything' and then asserting 'god did it' says NOTHING about HOW he did it.
Take a look at a scientific explanation and compare it to saying "X did it". Tell me which claim provides you with information, and which claim does NOTHING other than re-assert it's own assumption.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Whenever I catch someone in a circular logic fallacy, they come back with the claim that 'but, circular arguments are still valid"
I can only smile: the fact that circular arguments are valid should not surprise you; after all, you are saying: "A, therfore A"! So why are you surprised to find out that A does in fact equal A?!
So, the problem isn't that circular logic isn't valid, the problem is that <I> nothing is demonstrated.</i>
I'll go into more detail below
No, it's circular logic because you're using your conclusion as a premise. Drop your 'we all make assumptions' game as it has already failed.
Now, here's my promises points from my logic page:
Some people like to note that circular arguments are trivially valid. They are right: - circular arguments are valid - after all, since nothing new is generated in the concluson of a deductive arument, all deductive arguments are 'circular' - in that the conclusion is made up entirely from the premises. However, while it is true that nothing "new" is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument, this would not make deductive arguments 'circular' in the sense of a circular logic fallacy. Here is why:
Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of equivalencies - we can even reformulate such arguments as tautologies. Therefore, the point of such arguments is to demonstrate some equivalency (or lack thereof) between two categories. So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No.. I meant to say what I said. Heh.. in my experience people usually use "begs the question"... I was assuming "begging the question" to be somehow related with "begs the question".. and in my experience "begs the question" is usually followed by a question.
But thank you for leading me to new knowledge. Appreciated.
The post before this one also pointed me to a website that explains the logical fallacy more completely.
No.. it is not. As I stated.. I reformulated the argument after someone point out what you point out again in this one.
Once again.. I tried to clarify, or rectify this, when I reformulated the argument.
IF a b c, then d.
But.. I would guess that you might find this same problem with my reformulated argument because it posits, assumes, that God has the power too.
The means by which his power acts is not necessarily relevant to the fact that the argument makes an assumption he has the power, and coupled with will, would create the universe as is.
I sense somehow that you are expecting me to explain "HOW" in a manner that would require me to accept a particular method to be relevant, even though I have not stated the acceptance of this method as relevant in any of the sufficient conditions (within the argument).
You assume I must... and in assuming that I must, and, as a natural inference of me accepting this assumption of a method by which to prove "HOW" you believe me to be incapable of doing so.
(which may or may not be the case.. since you have not said by which method you are expecting me to restrict "HOW"
This.. is "Begging the Question" on your part.
http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
(sometimes you have to copy and paste the URL)
Begging the Question does not mean the argument itself to be false.. or even illogical.. only that it has no weight in convincing a person of either premise or conclusion of the argument.
My argument is that (Y because of X) can be rational.
Not that you must accept (Y) as a conclusion or even the premise of (X).
Within the explanation of this logical fallacy it even makes sure to point out that circular logic is not necessarily false or illogical.
So.. I ask. How do you wish me to state HOW god did it? Within what methodology? And by what means do you define said methodology?
For the definition you hold to be true is.. as I suspect.. taylored in such a way that I cannot prove-- then.. "Begging the Question" this is.
Mines just circular logic.
Which.. is rational.. just as this equation is rational.
2+3=5=4+1=2+3=5
a=b=c=b=a=b=c=b=a=b=c=a
Read all posts.. or at least skim them.. to see if I have responded to said points before. I will copy and paste and save you some time however-- you were kind enough to copy and paste the logical fallacy.. I will do the same.
Look above. (Not in the theological sense
HOW.. through his infinite power.
If you consider this an irrational answer then you will have to state why.. because I have made no assumptions about the limits of evidence to explain "HOW".. other than perhaps through inference that "power" is one way to do so.
Unlike.. say.. perhaps your mistaken assumption that giving something a name is not giving an explanation?
I do.. in some way.. make this assumption.. that by giving something a name (God.. or power.. undefined things).. that it makes an explanation.
But so do you when you say that it does not..
Both are 'logical' in the pure sense of the word and methodology. And since.. (all things being equal).. neither you nor I have accepted contradictory assumptions.. we would both be rational.
(Once again I must point out that I do not necessarily believe in this argument-- just making a point
A scientific explanation provides an explanation within the assumptions that it has made: those being, to name a few.
1.) Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence.
2.) That empirical evidence must be independently verified and must be qualified or quantified in some manner as to test it.
3.) etc etc etc.
This is the premise you are trying to have me conceed.. that I must show "HOW" under these conditions.. and by doing so.. conceed the conclusion that it would lead to.
Look above.
The threads title states that the purpose is to argue the rationality of an argument.. not whether or not it explains something in the manner which you wish.
Idem. I believe is the word.
No. I'm saying that if the assumptions are unprovable by any other means besides their own, self made, constructs of evidence and proof-- then they are equitable.
Once again. Look at the reformulated argument which was presented before you made this most recent post. Then.. after reading the rest of this post-- restate this question if you will.
Look above. Then. If you restate this.. I will argue to a more precise point then.
(I realize you just made a new post.. I will get to it now.. but I believe this to explain a bit more of where I'm coming from-- and the concession that, albeit trivial, that the argument is valid in the sense of convincing anyone of the conclusion or to accept the premises in the first place-- it is not trivial in the sense that to agree that it is logically valid.. would be to say that it is rational (definitively).)
Repetition over time does not denote irrelevance at one particular one.
(I'm attempting to be poetic
...
"Begging the Question" only applies to forums of public debate.. meaning-- more than one person. IF there is only one person.. debating with himself-- then.. well.. he can never be "Begging the Question" unless he be schizophrenic.
"Begging the Question" requires that you be trying to convince someone of something by asking that person to accept an assumption (that he doesn't already accept) that if accepted, would require them to accept the conclusion as well. (Because of circular logic).
Stop using circular logic and "Begging the Question" interchangeably.
IF "Begging the Question" then "circular logic" does not mean IF "circular logic" then "Begging the Question"
"nothing new is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument"?
IF A and B then C.
I guess you've got a point. The mere fact that I accept IF A and B then C.. (the inherent relationship between premises and their deductions) is an assumption I must accept first.
As for the rest of the point. Granted.. once again. BUT.. I am not arguing the acceptence of either premise or conclusion within the particular stated argument structure.. merely the concession that the argument itself is valid and rational.
The reoccuring theme of this forum seems to be that theism is necessarily irrational.
I am trying to state that it is not. Only when accepting other things as true does it possibly become necessarily irrational.
And.. at least to what I have read so far.. all the essays seems to just expect that the individual believes a certain way.. or that because his limits of what constitute proof or evidence are not the same as the respective writer.. that this makes that person, somehow, objectively irrational.
I think we agree.. that this cannot be.
Subjectively irrational perhaps.
But what does that mean? Irrational by it's very nature is a function of logic.. logic is something that seems to have an objective standard.. how then can something be subjectively illogical? (If.. granted.. logic is being used in it's pure sense of rules of reasoning)
Beh.
I appreciate your patience with me. I of course will try to accord you the same patience you have shown me in the past.
(One last clarification before I go to sleep. I do not discount that it is may be necessary, or there may be some benefit derived from, in certain aspects of life (such as, the courtroom) to define things as irrational and rational.. but in these cases.. its, I believe, stating one of two things-- what is commonly accepted as rational (in this time).. or what the judge is or is not willing to accept as rational or irrational. While both these cases refer to something "subjectively irrational".. I do believe it to be somewhat of a oxymoron (which refers to an apparent contradiction of terms.. an illogical one. Silent Scream. Bitter Sweet). These phrases may serve a purpose in relating a certain idea... that does not mean however that they are logical in the pure sense of reasoning. "Subjectively irrational" is like these other oxymoronish statements.. it serves a purpose to move a conversation a long-- but it does not mean that the statement "subjectively irrational" is any less contradictory.
Such as the mathematical idea of irrational numbers. They have no meaning (persay) by objective standard (meaning.. by any provable quality (within the structure of another method other then theoretical ones) outside of mathematics itself), they just happen to serve the purpose of furthering the equation.
Hah.. I've just realized what I'm saying. It would appear that I am saying that nothing has "objective" meaning. Only "subjective" meaning in accordance with it's own construct.
Granted.. I'm expanding the meanings of these words.. for I beileve, by strict definition, they only require some book outside of ones own body to be "objective" in any sense.
The idea of Logic does not appear (to me) to be subjective (in the absolute sense).. but objective ever since its inception-- its rules have not changed in other words.. and people do not seem to be trying to change them. (Since.. in order to change them you would need to be using some form of reasoning itself. And-- to accept a form of reasoning that discounts the very rules of reasoning.. would be to accept what rules you are trying to conclude, even before the discussion begins.)
I may be wrong on this. You seem to be more educated on the matter. Have the objective standards of Logic changed since it's inception and establishment as a methodology?
Logic.. is the only objective standard. It is the means by which all other things make structure in order to move forward by limiting what is rational and irrational withing the structure they have created (because if someone believed everything to be equally rational and irrational (in the absolute sense) then there would be no reason behind reason at all). And while these structures allow for the ability to call things irrational, it only goes so far as to state what is subjectively (according to the reasoning it has already used) so.
And these sort of things considered "subjectively rational" and "subectively irrational" have they purposes.. it is not to say that they are the same as "objectively rational" or "objectively irrational."
Nor do I believe that it allows someone the justification to imply irrational or rational (in the absolute) sense.. when they have not proven it to be so.
The only things (that I can think of) that are "objective irrational" are those things which accept contradictory premises.
Once again.. I'm professing to believe a certain theology at the moment-- only my contention that "Goditit" is a inherently irrational statement.
OK, guys, skip it, it's clearly getting you nowhere to debate about logical fallacies.
The argument that you have brought forth is very similar in a way to Anselm of Canterbury's. It goes like this:
From a logical point of view, we can say that the argument is correct. However, defining something means that whatever you defined starts to exist as a concept. The fact that God exists as a concept in our minds is undeniable, indeed, but that does not mean that it physically exists as well. We have Santa Claus, unicorns, dragons, Sherlock Holmes, Superman as concepts which we have defined but that doesn't mean they also exist in reality.
Your argument falls on the same lines. It is perfectly valid if you keep things at a concept level only.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
The debate about logical fallacies is only a side issue meant to deal with my original statement of whether the "Goditit" response can be a rational one.
That was all I was trying to point out in the beginning.
Yes.. the idea of logic (as I understand it) requires that you accept sufficient conditions in the first place. If the sufficient condition is "God (as any particular person now now understand it) exists" then it fails to be an effective argument because it would require one to accept the sufficient condition when it is the conclusion that can be proved in no other way (from this perspective) then accepting it in the first place.
But.. so does accepting the condition that "scientific validity (as as any particular person now understand them) exists" act as a an effective argument because it would require one to accept the sufficient condition when it is the conclusion that can be proved in no other way (from this perspective) then accepting it in the first place.
Never said it did. The thread was not about the existence of God but of the possible rationality behind one particular aspect of one particular rational that he does.
Concept is all I was meaning to keep it too. Yet.. as I stated in my last post.. by what means do you call a theistic worldview to be inherently irrational? as opposed to 'subjectively' so?
Bump. As to make sure that my last two posts (in responses to RM) and my post before those last two (in responsess to the MOD) have ample opportunity to be responded to.
Feel free to say that they are nonsensical.. or don't make sense.. or are invalid.. be sure to say why-- as I can correct my thinking. (If correction is actually necessitated by logic.)
Or you could say "Wow" and nothing else like one person did (not sure if this was a good or bad thing).. or make an argument and then not respond to my response in anyway..
But both these choices would leave me most unsatisfied.
Yep. Sticking a prepagaged answer based on ancient myth is a cop out. "I'll stick in an answer I like since I dont have a real one".
"God did it" is a claim, not an explination.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"God did it" is a claim!
You are correct.
But is it a rational one?
I don't understand why people are missing the point of contention here-- it was in the thread.
Rational need only be the exercising of reason, e.g. logic.
Are you saying the argument is not logical? Because that doesn't appear to be what you're saying. And.. if thats what you want to say-- make sure you read my second post-- since I've admitted and reformulated the original argument since I did not make a certain condition necessary (within the argument).
Correction. Or rather Clarification.
"Subjectively irrational" as an oxymoron.
My early quote.
Clarification is this.
"Subjectively irrational" when speaking from a purely logical standpoint.
--
Bumpbump. Still interested in a reply if the Todagt if he's willing to give one.
Vessel has pointed out that I might being tiring one out of a conversation.. Heh.
This may be true, and I apologize for that, but doesn't mean my points are necessarily invalid or less valid.
Just trying to clear up some confusion since I consider myself to be perfectly rational in my of a supreme being. (God specifically. Furthermore, a God picture based of accepting certain ideas within the Bible.)
RRS makes a claim that I cannot be. I am challenging that claim.