It has been said a few times in this thread that "we can never prove or disprove the existence of God", or words to that effect. While I agree with the sentiment behind this statement, in that it appeals to rationalism and the need for positive proof, I think something is being overlooked here. What I'm missing is the realisation that the truth of this statement is contingent on the non-existence of God.
After all, if God
does exist, then, although that would make it impossible to disprove his existence, which is half of what the statement purports, it would indeed be possible, in principle at least, to prove his existence, which is a negation of the other half of the statement. To wit, if he exists, he can make his existence known in no uncertain terms, which would constitute proof. God would be part of reality and as such would not need to be considered supernatural, and would thus be susceptible to a scientific approach. (Especially so if he decided to cooperate a little.)
On the other hand, if God does
not exist, we would never be able to prove his existence: whatever would be presented as proof might seem to be so, to some at least, but would be false in light of the fact of his non-existence. Neither could we ever disprove it: one cannot positively prove the non-existence of anything. Taken together, that is what the statement says.
In conclusion: if God does not exist, the statement "we can never prove or disprove the existence of God" is true, and if God does exist, the same statement is false.
Any takers?
"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." Desdamona, home school teacher.