To say that God is a filler concept is an unfalsifiable argument.

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 God is a filler concept.
Keywords: God[ edit ].


When we say that "God is a filler argument", we're assuming that there will be a natural or scientific explanation for the as yet unexplained phenomenon. In other words, we're assuming in advance the results of research and experiments that have yet to be carried out. In fact, we can always claim, when faced with any phenomenon, that it will be "naturally explained in the future". Even if we saw "Made by God" written in letters of fire on rocks, we could say "Tomorrow we'll find a natural explanation for this phenomenon". So the argument is unfalsifiable. No experiment can contradict it; we're "always right" in arguing that "in the future, such and such a fact will be explained in a scientistic way."



Arguments forJustifications

Arguments againstObjections

  • Argument againstScience has never claimed to be able to explain everything in the future.
  • Argument againstWe must accept the mystery
  • Argument againstTo claim that there is either a divine hypothesis or a known scientific explanation is to commit a false dilemma.

Parent debateParent debate