DISCUSSION 109 



I regard this statement regarding monism 

 as the most important part of Plate s whole 

 speech, and for that reason I append to it 

 the following critical remarks : 



The opinion which Plate describes as mon 

 istic, belongs, strictly speaking, not to monism, 

 but to agnosticism, for the latter limits itself to 

 the investigation of the laws of nature, without 

 committing itself to any statement about 

 God, who seems to the agnostic incapable of 

 being known at all. Monism, on the contrary, 

 asserts the absolute identity of God with the 

 world, and thus professes to know something 

 about God, although it is something wrong. 

 Professor Plate is right in pointing out the great 

 confusion existing in the monistic views of God, 

 which are all at variance. 



Plate s own confession that where there are 

 natural laws, there must be a lawgiver, is of the 

 utmost importance. A lawgiver underlying the 

 laws which He has made, cannot be identi 

 fied with those laws, for otherwise He would 

 be superfluous, as the laws of nature would 

 suffice independently of Him. Therefore the 

 originator of the laws of nature must be an 

 exalted and intelligent being, in fact, the personal 

 Creator recognised by theism. 



In my closing speech I laid great stress upon 

 the fact that, by making this important con 

 cession, Professor Plate, a member of the 



