The Absolute Impossibility of Disproving God's Existence

To Say There Are No Absolutes is to Make an Absolute Statement

Jack Wellman
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.

Published by Jack Wellman

I'm a pastor at Mulvane Brethren Church (KS) & author who gives free training for Effective Evangelism at various churches in the states and have published 3 books on Amazon: "Teaching Children The Gospel",...  View profile

To say that there are no absolutes defies logic. How can a statement that there are no absolutes be taken seriously since this is an absolute statement in itself?

50 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Nick4/8/2011

    Well stated Doug. How can I prove that no bears are bears. It's a contradiction. But we must be mindful of the possibility of these contradictions to be true. Take this for example, Joe wants to train with superman, but not with Clark Kent. Is this possible? Simply stated, no. In our minds we know that superman is both Clark Kent and Superman, but Joe knows that this is not the case. Joes knowledge is invalid.

  • Doug4/8/2011

    (Continued from my last post)

    You may be inclined to quote the bible, but that's akin to asserting that unicorns exist because a book tells us they do. There is, as I see it, no possible way to formulate an experiment that time after time will allow the experimenter to conclusively show that god exists. The burden of proof is a cruel mistress, and she's on your shoulders.

  • Doug4/8/2011

    I doubt anyone will read this as the article is far too old, but nonetheless...

    Jack makes this claim...

    "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"

    By the same standards that you claim no one can rationally be an atheist, I can argue that no one can rationally be a true believer. There is no absolute evidence of god. At an even more fundamental level, your evaluation of this topic is at the very least inspired by the scientific method. The scientific method is concerned with proving claims... you claim that god exists and thus by the scientific method need to find some suitable way to test your hypothesis. You may be inc

  • Joshua Ogaldez12/23/2010

    Solid case..excellent work mi amigo =]....One point you made, refering to something said by Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, was the investment people have made to the theory..wow..its amazing how this world works...because of monetary investment and greed, individuals are led to make porn, regardless of its effect on marriages, families and society..because of monetary investment...individuals are led to lie, regardless of those effected by the lies,...because of monetary investment...individuals are led to continue to support a groundless, non-conlusive theory, regardless of the effects....the theory is not then necesarrily taught for its truth, but for its profit. What a tragedy...thanks Jack...well done

  • Zona Zirconia10/8/2010

    ♥ good article, thank you I really like the cartoon at the top:) It made my day.

  • Tara Darity4/29/2010

    Very well written article and great topic!

  • Verna Hendrickson4/18/2010

    You are always opening my eye to the truth. Jesus was and is the absolute truth.

  • Teila Tankersley4/7/2010

    I posted this on my facebook account should prove for some interesting discusions.....

  • Becca Greiner3/14/2010

    Good points you've made. In a graduate class, someone once asked me how on earth I couldn't believe in evolution. I simply said, I believed that there were too many holes in the theory and that there wasn't enough proof to back it up; it seemed as if you had to have a lot of faith to accept evolution, despite all its flaws. I'm glad to have read your article. It's a good thing when Christians question their beliefs, and really try to understand why they believe what they do on an academic level, and not just a spiritual one.

  • Charlotte Kuchinsky3/8/2010

    Amazing piece! You really hit the nail on the head with this one.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.