How big is your blanket of faith when you are forced to claim enlightened ignorance? Obviously, it would be an insult to your intelligence if I felt as though I had to explain why it is that this is self-defeating. Ignorance cannot be a position of enlightenment. You cannot reference a position of ignorance and state, “that is the truth,” because the truth cannot possibly be that there is no truth or that truth is unknowable.
I have noticed that this position of enlightened ignorance seems to be developing into the internet atheists' catch phrase when discussing the Big Bang, the anthropic constants, et cetera. I do not mean to speak for them, but I believe that they claim ignorance because they believe that it is superior to claiming a false solution.
I yield that much. Ignorance is much better than claiming a false solution. For instance, if you asked two people, “Why is the grass green?” one replied “I don't know,” and the other replied, “Well, every night hundreds of painters flood the streets with bottles of spray paint.”
It could not be more clear that in this situation, “I don't know” is superior to an unfounded claim. But, “I don't know” is only superior when the opposing options are in fact unfounded, baseless claims. Let us take a look at the Cosmological Argument From Contingency.
1 - Everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, whether in the necessity of it's own nature or an external cause.
2 - The universe does not exist necessarily.
3 - Therefore, the universe has an external cause.
4 - To cause the universe requires traits that only God could have.
5 - Therefore, God exists.
This is not the unfounded assertion of a creator. To cause the universe requires spacelessness, because it caused space. It requires timelessness, because it caused time. It requires power and intelligence that supersede anything that mankind has ever dreamed of. Moreover, it must be personal, because it took the action of bringing the universe into existence.
This is the foundation of the Cosmological Argument. It is not the theist saying “We don't know how it happened, therefore, God did it.” Rather, the theist is saying that this argument successfully demonstrates that a being with the outlined traits exists.
The atheist usually inserts the “I don't know” fallacy here because they think that this is the unfounded assertion of the Christian God. Alas that charge immediately evaporates upon the explanation that I have provided.
To successfully refute this argument, the opposition would have to challenge what the causal power of the universe must entail. The atheist, if to be consistent in their atheism, must maintain that it cannot be timeless, spaceless, powerful, intelligent, and personal. But I think to do that is just to neglect to follow the evidence to its' logical conclusion.
In conclusion “I don't know” is the defeater of the 'God Of The Gaps' argument. All required to defeat this defeater is demonstrate that the argument is in fact not a God Of The Gaps argument.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here