Whether God's Existence Can Be Proven VII

We now see that whether or not a human being can prove that God exists refers to the ability or inability of a human being to formulate a proof for God's existence. This being so, it is important to note the proposition that "no sound argument with the conclusion that God exists is logically possible" refers to what is, well, logically possible; not humanly possible. If no proof for God's existence is logically possible, then, of course, no human being can prove that God exists. Moreover, without relying on faith, the only way for a person to know that a proof for God's existence is possible is by knowing that some argument is a proof; merely formulating it would not be sufficient.

It does not follow, however, that if a proof is logically possible, any human being is capable of formulating it. Therefore, if someone holds that no human being can prove that god exists, it does not follow that no proof is logically possible. This is why it would be fallacious for people who assert "no sound argument with the conclusion that God exists is logically possible" to offer as evidence for the assertion that no human being can formulate a proof. So, a proof for God's existence can be logically possible, though no human being is able to formulate it.

When people understand this difference between asserting that no proof for God's existence is logically possible and asserting that no human being can prove that God exists, they usually admit that they did not state precisely what they meant when they said it is impossible to prove that God exists. When this occurs, people typically maintain that what they originally meant to say was that no human being can prove that God exists. This strikes them as a position easier to establish than that "no sound argument with the conclusion that God exists is logically possible"; for what possible evidence could establish that no proof is logically possible that God exists?