God is but the name of our ignorance

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Argument againstThis argument is a “con” argument in the debate Does God exist?.
Keywords: God[ edit ].



“Undoubtedly, there is still much that is unknown, dark and misunderstood by us in the universe; undoubtedly, new gaps in our knowledge will always open up, as old gaps are filled. But we see no region in which it would be impossible for us to find the explanation of phenomena by turning to the simple physical facts - those that occur when two billiard balls meet, or when a stone falls, or to the chemical facts we see around us. So far, these "mechanical" facts suffice to explain all of Nature's life. Nowhere have they failed us: and we do not foresee the probability of ever discovering a region where mechanical facts would no longer suffice. Nothing, so far, leads us to suspect its existence.”

Kropotkin, Modern science and anarchy, 1913.



Arguments forJustifications

  • Argument forGod is a filler concept
  • Argument forWe must accept the mystery
  • Argument forMany religious explanations have been replaced by scientific ones.
  • Argument forThe biblical accounts are consistent with the paucity of human knowledge at the time they were written.

Arguments againstObjections

  • Argument againstScience cannot explain the existence of physical phenomena and laws
  • Argument againstCertain future explanations of science are taking shape that run counter to materialism.
  • Argument againstContemporary science is shaking the philosophical foundations on which materialism rests.

Parent debateParent debate