Final answer:
The statement references agnosticism, which holds that knowledge of God is uncertain or unknowable and thus irrelevant to human concerns. Arguments such as the Euthyphro Dilemma and the Proof of the Truthful offer philosophical discussions on God's existence and relevance, but do not empirically verify a deity, highlighting the complex interplay between belief, evidence, and the human search for moral and existential understanding.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement you are describing is related to agnosticism, which considers the knowledge of God or divine realities as unknowable, thus rendering theological claims scientifically unverifiable and irrelevant to matters of human concern.
In discussing this concept, it's important to distinguish between the existence of a supernatural entity and its relevance to human concerns. The argument that the lack of scientific evidence for God's existence makes the concept of God irrelevant is separate from the debate over whether God exists. The Euthyphro Dilemma, for example, questions whether moral values are commanded by God because they are inherently good, or if they are good because God commands them, showcasing the complexity of tying moral principles directly to the divine.
On the other hand, some philosophical arguments, like the Proof of the Truthful, suggest that there must be a necessary, nonmaterial cause or entity, which is often identified as God, to explain the existence of the contingent material world. Yet this, and other rational arguments for God's existence, such as Thomas Aquinas' assertion of knowing God through experiencing God as the Cause of natural phenomena, do not empirically establish the existence of a supernatural deity but instead address the logical possibility of such an existence. Therefore, while these arguments may not suffice to prove the existence of a deity rationally to a non-believer, they are also not enough to dismiss the possibility of a deity entirely.