By Vorjack

We spend a lot of time talking about evidence for God — as we should — but I can’t help but think we’ve skipped a couple of steps.

Consider this excerpt from George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God:

Mr Jones: “A unie exists.”
Mr White: “Prove it.”
Mr Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”

If this exchange is less than satisfactory, much of the blame rests with Mr. White: his demand for proof is immature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is; until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some description of an “unie,” the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent. (source)

Before we can even begin to discuss the evidence for God, we need to establish a few things first. For the believer, here are two questions:

1. What do you mean when you say the word “God?”
2. Based on your answer from the above, how do we go about learning about this “God?” To put it more concretely, how do we judge between two claims about the nature of God?

Let me try and head off some common problems. If you use the word “infinite,” you’re going to have problems providing a deFINITion. Defining something means putting boundaries around it.  If God is boundless, then it’s beyond definition. Words like “ineffable” and “transcendent” have many of the same problems.

Phrases like “outside of time and space” share some of these problems as well.  All our language is geared towards describing a space that is ordered by time.  We simply don’t have the words or the concepts to describe something that is outside our universe. So phrases like “timeless” join the heap of words that simply indicate that we cannot meaningfully talk about God.

So, believers — what do you mean by “God” and how can we learn about this being?