In all the centuries and even eras in which various people have tried to prove the existence of God, not one has succeeded. God has never been proved. Many attempts have been made, using various means, by philosophers and theologians, but they have failed equally.

We can’t put God into a test tube and heat him over a Bunsen burner to see if he melts, explodes, or evaporates. We can’t figure God into a mathematical calculation and number his factors. We can’t assert a major premise and a minor premise and find God in the syllogism’s conclusion. None of this yields God. God is neither empirically demonstrated nor logically predicated.

Of course, at least as many attempts have been made to disprove the existence of God. These earnest and often sincere people have been as successful as those who tried to prove God does exist. They have failed equally. God has never been disproved.

Just as God has never been — nor will he ever be — proved by any of the above means, no one has ever disproved God exists by any of these same procedures. Of course, if a concept or thought is not a metaphysical entity (has no being), it is impossible to disprove what does not even exist. If a thing does not, in fact, exist, it is impossible to prove it does not exist. And this is precisely the most frequently used argument against the existence of God. But the failure to prove does not constitute success in disproving.

The struggles to prove or disprove God presume a necessity to do one or the other. If we conclude it is impossible to prove or to disprove God, it might be that it is unnecessary to do either.

We are familiar with other things that can neither be proved nor disproved. A sophomoric puzzle has it: “What happens when an irresistible force meets and immoveable object?” The question is nonsense, because it fails to recognize the particularity of definitions; it ignores a basic law of thought. If there is such a thing as an irresistible force, by definition, there is no such thing as an immoveable object—one or the other, but not both. The most successful craftsman cannot make a triangle with four sides. A thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time in the same sense.

So, too, is nonsense that equally sophomoric taunt of atheists, “Can God make a rock heavier than he can lift?”

God is — by definition — a being that cannot be proved and, therefore, cannot be disproved. Moreover, whoever should prove that God exists proves there is no such thing as God. You just cannot prove an unprovable thing. If God created time and space and every thing within time and space (the very nature of God), no thing within time and space can prove what created it. A statue cannot itself prove the existence of the artist who sculpt it.

Not to worry—about this or anything above. You cannot prove that you exist. If you try, “But here I am!”, you assume in your major premise what you promise to prove in the conclusion.

This is the most basic of logical fallacies. Empiricists who mock the existence of God because they cannot prove him scientifically, will profess love for their spouses when, by the same means, they cannot prove their love.

How do people know they love each other? They experience their love. How do we know God exists? By experiencing God. God’s existence is not demonstrated by empirical experimentation or predicated by logical argumentation, but known only by spiritual experience.