If God existed there would be proof. There is no proof therefore God does not exist.

We’ve all heard it. Some of us reading this might believe it.

That Napoleon fought at Waterloo can be proven, like many other facts can be proven, and how closer to the people still alive how easier it is.

But for the Unseen Being Who was before everything it becomes very difficult to come to a proof, because all materials and knowledge to prove something is given by Him.

His presence or existence is not touchable nor controllable like other matters we can see around us and examine.

Many may say mathematical hypotheses may be proven but those proofs are always going out from some points everybody seems to accept to be right, but who ever can say or be sure they are right. Lots of scientist matters of which people thought they were right have been proven not to be right in later years.

Unlike human inventions, nature has always evolved without man able to control it. Often man thinks him to be superior to nature and able to handle it but he is mistaken.

Nature is the open book of the presence of God. It are the axioms and evidence of the Power behind it.


To remember:

Prof John Lennox (professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in the Philosophy of Science at Oxford University’s Green Templeton College.) shows us the flaws in the statement.To demand a kind of 1+1 = 2 kind of proof for God, is to demand a level of proof that we do not demand for anything else outwith the context of mathematics.

‘proof’ in informal sense = ‘prove beyond reasonable doubt’ = ‘give evidence for’, => can’t do it in sense of mathematics,
Atheism is not proof based whilst Christianity is faith based => both worldviews  rest upon certain presuppositions.

Atheist his own worldview = also faith based

  1. problem not with lack of adequate proof, but with lack of adequate characterization => coherent + consistent definition is needed.
  2. ‘prove beyond reasonable doubt’, = ‘give evidence for’>
  3. definitions, by their definition, are functional.

“Can you prove that empirically?” 1) It can’t be done. 2) It highlights the fact that both the atheist and the theist begin with propositions.

if one seeks to infer from evidence, one must infer to something which demonstrates some coherence, to the extent that one may say, “A stands in relation to B such that if A and B then we may expect to find C.”


Preceding articles

2nd question: What or where is the beginning

3rd question: Does there exist a Divine Creator

Looking for answers on the question Is there a God #1 Many gods

Looking for answers on the question Is there a God #2 Pantheon of gods and celebrations

Have no other gods besides Me


Further related articles

  1. God
  2. God? Very Probably – Part II
  3. a proof of existinse from the lack of extra.
  4. Apologetics 101 – Pride and Prejudice – The Demand for Evidence For God
  5. Is “Fine Tuning” Actually Required for Proving the Existence of God?
  6. There is no Evidence that God Exists
  7. How It Works: God
  8. Lecture: Islamic Spirituality – The Searching for Meaning
  9. ‘God: The Only Rational Explanation’ (Lecture at the University of Surrey)
  10. Powerlessness vs. Ultimate Power: Why God is truly omnipotent and why we need to change our way of thinking on power
  11. “Are Humans Born to Believe in God?” My talk at the Abrahamic Foundation
  12. The Quran’s refutation of Atheism in 21 words
  13. Faith: An Exercise In Futility
  14. God Exists and He Is Good
  15. The Things God couldn’t do









10 thoughts on “Is there no ‘proof’ for God? (And why that statement is not as smart as you might think.)

  1. Non-controversial. A proponent should just be able to coherently state his proposal, that’s all. That is especially the case when what one proposes is hermetic.
    I am not a philosopher. But neither is Lennox – a fact which he is apt to forget. Amnesia explains most of his statements, actually.
    But back to the point, I have seen a coherent statement of the basic theistic proposition. Most find it unsatisfying, though.


    1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiments persons can form a certain co-relation of attitudes by people their emotional feelings for each other.

      Based on practical experience rather than scientific proof it is very difficult to proof the existence of love and of God.

      Like there is no direct, actual and factual proof of love, also there is no observed experimental pragmatic proof based on evidence of the senses, based on observation, derived from experience, diagnostic, guided by experiment, or provisional for coming to a conclusion that God would exist or that there is a divine Creator. According to us that is the only one dogmatic element for faith that we have to come to see in what is around us that there is a Higher Hand behind it, which we call The God.

      As such derived from systematic observation by many people and by the unexplainable feelings that many people had or merely theoretical knowledge, we can assume that love and God exist and that they even are co-related, God being a God of love.

      Not only based on actual measurement, observation, or experience, rather than on theory do we know about God, because the Divine Creator implanted the feeling about the One Who we are made in His image.

      As such we can say that the empirical evidence or study relies on practical experience rather than theories and as such brings us evidence for the existence of love, hate and other feelings but also of the Most High God, though it may not always be logic from first principles.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.