Just because an event is scientifically unexplained doesn't mean it proves the existence of God (Appeal to ignorance)

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Argument againstThis argument is an objection to Miracles attest to God's direct intervention.
Keywords: none[ edit ].

SummarySummary

[ edit ]

If a scientifically unexplained event is proof of God, then all things misunderstood by men in history were proof of God. On the same level as miracles. Lightning, clouds, falling bodies, placebos, etc...

But we now know the scientific explanation for some of these phenomena. The ancients were wrong to consider them as proof of God.

We're in the business of appealing to ignorance.

QuotationsQuotes

[ edit ]
No quotes have been entered yet.

ReferencesReferences

[ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.

Arguments forJustifications

[ edit ]
    No arguments have been entered yet.

Arguments againstObjections

[ edit ]
    No objections have been entered yet.

Parent debateParent debate

Retrieved from "https://en.wikidebates.org/w/index.php?title=Just_because_an_event_is_scientifically_unexplained_doesn%27t_mean_it_proves_the_existence_of_God_(Appeal_to_ignorance)&oldid=6890"