Talk:Goddidit

Surely either goddammit or (pref) godamnit or goddamnit Keep^{Me informed} 20:33, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to agree. CЯacke® 20:34, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

You bitches, I was trying to keep the number of letters the same. But I yield, obviously, to the mob... human^{be in} 23:26, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Very First Goddidit Talk

I was working on a topic about noah's ark, and mentioned to a religious co-worker of mine, three problems that I didn't yet have an article for. 1) why some water dwelling animals survived while others (dinosaurs) didn't, 2) why fish survived teh sudden change in salinity, and 3) how noah dealt with wood rot for the 100 years he was making his boat. to the first two she said "God has the power to kill of those animals he didn't want to live. it would be his decision if he let them survive", and to the second, "God protected the boat so it didn't rot." How do you argue against this? Seriously? --WaitingforGodot 10:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Eheh, you don't. To quote AKjeldsen, it's an epic waste of time. If you were so inclined, you could patiently explain the fallacies of biblical literacy, but that may be more effort than it's worth. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:19, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

If "God has the power to kill of those animals he didn't want to live. it would be his decision if he let them survive" then what was the point of the flood in the first place? Daecon 11:42, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

A global flood is more visually impressive than snapping your fingers to make them all disappear : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:43, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Link to Occam's razor

"Goddidit is essentially the simplest possible explanation for the universe"

Occam's razor dictates that the simplest possible explanation is usually true, so what is the purpose of linking to it here? Are we saying that goddidit is reasonable since it rests on Occam's razor?

I would actually dispute that goddidit is the simplest explanation for things (although it is the laziest). The argument from design / watchmaker analogy uses a kind of Occam's razor (i.e. the simplest explanation for complex things is that they are designed). But science has developed to explain the causes and processes of most natural events. "Goddidit" is essentially saying that, as well as these observable causes and effects, there is another hidden factor behind everything. As such it fails Occam's razor. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I've added my take on the whole thing in a separate section. But considering how many references to Goddidit there are, and the fact that it's top of Google for it, we need a more rigorous treatment of the subject. ^gnostic 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

God can cause even two contradictory statements to be simultaneously true?

I guess if God is omnipotent, then He can cause cause even two contradictory statements to be simultaneously true. Thus, for instance, free will and human accountability for sin can exist, yet so can predestination and election. Thus, it becomes impossible to convincingly argue against such a religion on the grounds that it is self-contradictory; one would have to argue that the premise of the omnipotent God is false, or at any rate unproven, which it definitely is. On the other hand, if someone argues, "God revealed to me, but not to you, that I have the right to exercise authoritarian rule over you," then how do you argue with that? At that point, all you can really do is take up arms and blow him away before his tyranny gets any more entrenched. Tisane (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A fundamental problem with allowing contradiction in logic, is that one can prove anything with it. While humans fundamentally work with extensive amounts of contradiction in our individual lives, and our process of thought, and belief, some of us realize that this allows you to believe entirely retarded shit, and thus it need be resolved once found. Drawing the line of where "omnipotent" is, is a difficult question. If we allow for the existence of such an entity that it is capable of defying logic, then we can have anything at all. There is no way to exclude any beliefs, because they can all be justified equally. If one asserts the existence of such omnipotence, then one has simply given up entirely upon logic, and there is no arguing with him. And we return to the natural laws of force and violence to induce action in others, rather than law and order. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Law and order tend to be enforced by force and violence too; the only difference is that the government has a monopoly on said force and violence, and supposedly no one is above the law. (In practice, of course, that's not true; e.g., if legislators want to single out Wal-Mart for special punishment, they will just pass a law that only applies to stores of a certain square footage. Likewise, if they want to target blacks, they will just enact draconian penalties for behavior such as crack cocaine distribution that blacks are statistically more like to commit. Theoretically, if they wanted to target you as an individual, they could just enact a law that only applies to a person with your specific characteristics, e.g. only people with a particular DNA sequence that you happen to be the only person on earth who has. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up heading in that direction.) Tisane (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a few omnipotence paradoxes and a few solutions to them, not many are particularly conclusive IMHO. But it is an unfortunate case of special pleading of saying "we will now use logic to prove God exists but when logic says God doesn't exist, logic doesn't apply." ^gnostic 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Most theists I have run into selectively cite historical evidence for the Bible's truthfulness, and use anecdotal evidence of answered prayer. However, there is always an explanation for everything. If you are a Christian and have a prosperous life, then it's because God blessed you, which is proof of the Bible's truthfulness. However, if you are a Christian and you lose everything you have, then it's because of either your own imperfections as a Christian or because God has some purpose that is beyond your understanding, much like in the story of Book of Job. I can't believe in anecdotal evidence of that sort; it's too subject to cognitive bias. Tisane (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tisane, please learn to sign with "4" tildes. Before hitting "save", make sure you left "4" tildes, not 3 or 5. ħuman 05:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading the Book of Job (or at least claiming to follow a faith using it as a Canonical text), most Christians shouldn't place focus on God doing favoritism, blessing or punishments. But on the main point, it's basically an Omnipotence paradox - where most variations are too poorly worded that they allow loopholes, rely on specific definitions of omnipotence, esoteric situations, or where the paradox itself is the contradiction. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Godditit proves there is no such thing as creation science

A scientific theory can be falsified.Godditit stops creationism being a theory if every way it can be falsified is replaced by Godditit.--Thedoctor80 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Is it just me, or is the end of Battlestar Galactica one great big "Goddidit"? ADK^{...I'll bescumber your thumbtack!} 10:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just you. It was the biggest letdown in television I've ever seen. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BS. The ending was fine, what else do you expect? Although I do prefer Edward James Olmos' version where they descend towards Earth only to be nuked by the Americans and then they cut to the Whitehouse and someone says "congratulations Mr President, you've saved the world" and it pans over to show that it's one of the Cylons. Just a bit... Goddidit, really. ADK^{...I'll deceive your houseplant!} 12:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This and this sum up my feelings about the ending. Four seasons of genius blown apart by a really, really shitty ending. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh. The only way you can consider something a let down is if you approach it with your own ideas, prejudices and preconceptions. People end up whining aimlessly and it's just depressing because they turn from fans into something closer to angry shareholders. ADK^{...I'll dry your bassoon!} 13:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still a fan. Watched the entire thing again from the start only a month or so ago. It's just that quite honestly, the last episode is a let down. Not all of it - The Adama/Roslin scenes are brilliant and touching, but the mess with Kara and the idiocy with the angels? Ugh. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let it join Lost and Babylon 5 in the ranks of awesome shows with crappy endings. Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

i'm a bit apprehensive now...

... what if "God" really did "it"? ^{— Unsigned, by: 113.210.97.26 / talk / contribs}

What if it did? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As 'Mrs God' references are made in some of the records and 'the sons of god' are also referred to, God theoretically did do it.' 171.33.197.73 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"The proverbial infant's" response

... to 'Goddidit', Satandidit, Flooddidit, Falldidit and [Aliensdidit]] (and any others of that ilk) would be why?

Follow this by 'Why not (insert other category)?' Continue as if playing Scissors, stone, paper. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Move

Was there a conversation somewhere about merging the didits (fallacies) into one glossary? I don't see any reason why they cannot be standalone articles while at the same time there being a glossary with brief articles. ShabiDOO 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kind of. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)