DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - "Goddidit" - the "trump-card" of creationists or other biblical literalists...

**brraverishhh** · 04-11-2012, 08:29 AM

"Goddidit" is a trump card very commonly used by monotheists who can't find an explanation or can no longer argue their position from logic. By appealing to authority (in this case the bible or holy scriptures or God), 1. the arguer avoids having to explain anything, and 2. the argument is usually accompanied by a fallacy of ignorance, where he claims that something is so-and-so because there is no evidence that shows otherwise, and a fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof" by getting his opponent to come up with evidence to proof otherwise. How often have we heard arguments like:

C: God created the universe
E: How do you know?
C: How else could it be? Can YOU prove it is not created by God?

As we can see, this is not a good argument because it leads to no conclusion, and there is no logic involved. Granted, atheists cannot explain entirely how the Big Bang occured. However, that does not mean that God has to do it. By restricting ourselves to think that there are only two ways in which the universe could have existed, the Big Bang or God, atheists would have fallen into another trap, the fallacy of false dichotomy. What if there was a third option? Why discount the possibility of the Chinese "Pan Gu" and "Nv Wa"?

What creationists should be doing to prove the existence of God is to provide evidence that can be corroborated by other external credible sources, and put down their pride, ego and faith if they cannot. Stories of so-and-so achieved something impossible, through prayer or otherwise, are insufficient because these personal stories are usually uncredible due to the exaggerations involved. Furthermore, how do we explain the miracles of those non-believers or believers of other religions? Chinese mediums, Malay bomohs?

I cannot claim that I am an atheist. I am more of an agnostic, and I will believe in God if he appears in front of me to prove his existence. However, that has never happened, so I do not see a reason to believe in God (or gods, depending on your religion). Furthermore, modern science have done a relatively good job in explaining most of the phenomenons that occur around me.

Often, it ends up in a "The Loudest Wins" game. Which is really pointless. And not very intellectual.

04-11-2012, 08:29 AM	#15
brraverishhh Join Date Jan 2006 Posts 5,127 Senior Member	"Goddidit" is a trump card very commonly used by monotheists who can't find an explanation or can no longer argue their position from logic. By appealing to authority (in this case the bible or holy scriptures or God), 1. the arguer avoids having to explain anything, and 2. the argument is usually accompanied by a fallacy of ignorance, where he claims that something is so-and-so because there is no evidence that shows otherwise, and a fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof" by getting his opponent to come up with evidence to proof otherwise. How often have we heard arguments like: C: God created the universe E: How do you know? C: How else could it be? Can YOU prove it is not created by God? As we can see, this is not a good argument because it leads to no conclusion, and there is no logic involved. Granted, atheists cannot explain entirely how the Big Bang occured. However, that does not mean that God has to do it. By restricting ourselves to think that there are only two ways in which the universe could have existed, the Big Bang or God, atheists would have fallen into another trap, the fallacy of false dichotomy. What if there was a third option? Why discount the possibility of the Chinese "Pan Gu" and "Nv Wa"? What creationists should be doing to prove the existence of God is to provide evidence that can be corroborated by other external credible sources, and put down their pride, ego and faith if they cannot. Stories of so-and-so achieved something impossible, through prayer or otherwise, are insufficient because these personal stories are usually uncredible due to the exaggerations involved. Furthermore, how do we explain the miracles of those non-believers or believers of other religions? Chinese mediums, Malay bomohs? I cannot claim that I am an atheist. I am more of an agnostic, and I will believe in God if he appears in front of me to prove his existence. However, that has never happened, so I do not see a reason to believe in God (or gods, depending on your religion). Furthermore, modern science have done a relatively good job in explaining most of the phenomenons that occur around me. Often, it ends up in a "The Loudest Wins" game. Which is really pointless. And not very intellectual.
	Quote