Ovi -
we cover every issue
Apopseis magazine  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
Murray Hunter: Essential Oils: Art, Agriculture, Science, Industry and Entrepreneurship
WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
The Absolute Impossibility of Disproving God's Existence
by Jack Wellman
2010-03-06 09:24:20
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
I have heard before the statement that there are no absolutes. First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes. Then what about objective truths? Do objective truths exist? When someone says that “there are no objective truths”, then how can we really believe that to be a true statement, since they have just declared that there are not objective truths. Therefore, it is logical to infer that there must be objective truths for to declare that there are not, it is holding fast to an objective truth in that statement.

One of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." That’s probably a conservative figure. One absolute truth is that we do not know everything there is, therefore, absolutes do exist. Yet some people still believe that there are no absolutes. My question would be, “Really? How can you be absolutely sure of that? “Here is the loss of logic in the statement that there are no absolutes. If you say that there are no absolutes, then how can you be absolutely sure of this, since you are stating, absolutely, that there are no absolutes. You are using an absolute statement to say that there are no absolutes.

That can not fly logically or philosophically. How can a statement that there are no absolutes be proved? Finite humans are limited in their understanding of the universe as is our finiteness limiting our measuring time into infinity. For humans, it is absolutely impossible. This is another absolute.

So if you say categorically that, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement for which you can not prove. For that statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge of the entire universe in all dimensions and in all recesses of the universe, even beyond those we can not see or ever hope to reach. We already have the concrete absolute that no human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully, dogmatically and absolutely make the assertion that there is no God.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists or not. You certainly can not prove absolutely that He does not exist. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist for an atheist denies any beliefs in a God for which they can not have concrete proof of their belief. Without concrete evidence or proof, how can the atheist declare with absoluteness that there is absolutely no God? This can never be proved conclusively. You can be an agnostic, yes, but not an atheist, for they can not, beyond a shadow of doubt, prove that there is no God. It is absolutely impossible to prove that God does not exist. So the professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists; that is having “no knowledge” of something or someone.

Mussolini once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God, only because God did not answer him immediately. However, it was in that very same year that he died.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator since they can not absolutely prove He does not exist. However, it takes more faith to believe that there was no creation than having everything come into existence on its own, without a cause. Cause and effect are universal scientific axioms. What in the universe lasts forever? Nothing! So everything that exists logically had to have a beginning and a beginning infers a cause for the beginning.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington: One wonders why, with all the evidence, the theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, and text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31 says that, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our “a priori” adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”

Moreover materialism is claimed as an absolute, for science dare not allow a Divine Foot in the door. That would place the creature below the Creator. Rather, the material world and all its scientific axioms, principles and knowledge are worshipped, and even the creature (human beings). It occurs to me that it takes more faith to believe there is no God, and the universe caused itself, than to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

Humans are not qualified to make absolute statements such as, “there is no God“. Especially since mankind’s knowledge is extremely finite, as Edison put it. So the self-proclaimed atheist ignores their complete lack of all knowledge and boldly claims that there is absolutely no God and that He absolutely does not exist. The problem is that they can not prove it, for it is absolutely impossible to prove that God does not exist. If there is anything absolute it is that one can not claim with absoluteness that He does not exist. That, in itself, is absolutely impossible. That’s about the only thing we can say with absoluteness. That is absolutely true.

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Emanuel L. Paparella2010-03-06 23:18:57
Indeed, Jack, the ancients in many ways knew less than us moderns but were at least in one sense superior to us: in knowing what they did not know, as well as in their understanding that the beginning of wisdom is the declaration that “I know that I don’t know” as Socrates in fact declares after he has marveled in awe at the wonders of at the cosmos and then arriving at the insight that “philosophy begins in wonder.” This brings us to the other side of the coin: when the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, Pascal, just to mention a few, engage in a sort of natural theology and arrive at the so called “proofs” for the existence of God, those proofs are rational logical proofs and are needed to anchor their whole philosophy and its anthology (what really exists). The god they arrive at by reason is nothing else but the god of the philosophers, the product of one’s rational mind with no transcendence, an idol of sort, perhaps the same immanent idol about which Nietzsche says that he is dead, by which one worships one’s own cleverness, not at all the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, a transcendent personal God with whom one has a relationship in “fear and trembling,” to say it with Kierkegaard. I think that such a crucial distinction has to be always be kept in mind when we engage in rationally proving the existence, or non-existence for that matter, of God. Ultimately Kierkegaard, the father of modern existentialism, may have it on target: it is not a matter of reason at all but a matter of faith. One believes and interacts with God personally in a “leap of faith,” not because one has convinced oneself or has been convinced by clever logical rational arguments; not to speak that reason as Vico has well taught us, is more than mere rationality; for if we believe with Aristotle and Descartes that we are nothing else but rational animals, then the computer, who beats us at chess every time we play with it, is by far superior to us, and that is a sad situation for man to be in, indeed.

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi