0

"We will never have the answers to every question and every unexplained occurrence, and a God may be involved in the explanation to the unexplained answer(s), so we cannot completely assert its non-existence."

I don't know if never having all the answers at any point is true, but let us assume that it is - there will always be a degree of incompleteness in the 'library' of knowledge we have amassed. Perhaps a conceptualization in the following way: take any event or thing we know, and repeatedly ask questions about it similar to 'how was it made' or 'how did this happen' - a form of repeated unfolding, until we arrive at a 'we don't know' or 'it's just how it's defined'

Given this premise, is it accurate, or logical, to make the subsequent argument that, since the answer to an unexplained occurrence could be God or a higher power (whatever you conceptualize it as), it is incorrect to assert that such a being cannot exist (a.k.a anti-theism).

What are your opinions of this argument?

Sounds very God-of-the-gaps-y, but my claim isn't that the existence of these gaps prove God, rather that it disproves the certainty of claiming it doesn't exist.

Side notes: Of course, if there was an unexplained question, and we eventually find a logical reason for that event occurring, it can be discounted from the set of all events God may have caused. But one of my assumptions is that this set cannot be an empty set. Moreover, you could also perform an additional unfolding of the recently discovered reason (ask it another 'why' or 'how'), and you've essentially discovered either an element of that set pre-existing, or something that can be added to the set.

13
  • 4
    No atheist who have given two thoughts about their position will ever deny that "a god may exist". But the statement is so abstract it's basically meaningless. Why should we care? There might as well be ghosts or Kardashev III civilizations in outer space, as long as I personally don't know everything there is to know I can't rule out this possibility. But if it doesn't interfere with my life why should I care? And if it does, then it's on you to explain how and prove it.
    – armand
    Mar 30, 2023 at 23:37
  • 1
    Anything you can think of might be "the answer to something," but that's not evidence that it exists.
    – D. Halsey
    Mar 30, 2023 at 23:41
  • 1
    The conclusion of the argument is not terribly committing, regardless of the argument steps. The conclusion says: "a god may exist" which seems like the argument didn't establish anything new.
    – Frank
    Mar 31, 2023 at 1:22
  • 2
    The argument is a non-sequitur, it is a variant of ad ignorantiam fallacy called god of the gaps, and a particularly clumsy one. What does X possibly answering some questions have to do with X's existence? Just replace "God" by "round square" and look at the conclusion. The 'logic' here reminds me the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it. Just replace "doing" by "answering with" and "this" by "God".
    – Conifold
    Mar 31, 2023 at 6:09
  • 2
    It's 2023. Why are people still debating stuff like this? There's an interesting philosophical question. Mar 31, 2023 at 6:40

2 Answers 2

3

The conclusion of the argument is not really committing, regardless of the argument steps. The conclusion says: "a god may exist", so it seems that the argument is not advancing anything new. We are no better off at the end of the argument than at the beginning.

1
  • Most philosophical (logical word gymnastics) would more correctly lead to what is accurately described as Agnosticism. They do not deny, but they do not add facts one can bite their teeth into, either. It is a land of limbo. The human soul seeks more certitude.
    – user64825
    Apr 20, 2023 at 23:10
2

"We will never have the answers to every question and every unexplained occurrence, and a God may be involved in the explanation to the unexplained answer(s), so we cannot completely assert its non-existence.

We will never have the answers to every question and every unexplained occurrence, and God may not be involved at all, so we cannot completely assert its existence.

Your argument can be used to support both the existence and non-existence of God.

2
  • 1
    At least it covers both possibilities - good argument!
    – Scott Rowe
    Mar 31, 2023 at 10:25
  • 1
    @ScottRowe Ignorance is bliss.
    – user64314
    Apr 2, 2023 at 1:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .