Welcome to tomthinking.com Wednesday, January 23 2019 @ 02:44 AM UTC
God Cannot Be Comprehended Or Defined
In his book, Why There Is No God, author Armin Navabi argues for atheism against the statement, "God cannot be comprehended or defined." Regarding this so called apologetic statement I can only say that it is completely false. Whoever makes such a statement in defense of Christianity is making a claim that is completely untrue and against the Bible's revelation of who God is.
Think about it this way. If God cannot be described or defined, then that means that no language contains the words or concepts to accomplish that end. Thus, we couldn't even say, "God." This is utter foolishness. Anything that exists can be described and language is the means whereby we describe it.
I've never heard anyone make this kind of defense of Christianity, for the simple reason that it is just plain wrong, and frankly, stupid. The whole purpose of the Bible is to make God known. It describes his personality, attributes, power, purposes, acts, relationships, and so on.
It is true that God cannot be known comprehensively, but he can be known and understood. And it is because of what we understand about him that we so desperately want others to know him.
Navabi calls this the appeal to faith, in the sense that when a person cannot prove their claim for God's existence, they appeal to "just having faith;" faith that has no description or evidence. In such a case, Navabi is correct. An appeal to faith without evidence is absurd. The real question at hand, which Navabi cleverly avoids throughout his book, is "What constitutes evidence for God's existence?"
Throughout Navabi's book he deconstructs, one by one, 20 statements he says are claims to prove God's existence. If the statements stood alone, then by themselves they could only have little persuasive power. However, evidence for God, or in fact for anything, requires not one piece of evidence, but many. In other words, it is the preponderance of evidence for something that leads us to believe that its conclusion is true. It's about the cumulative evidence.
Christianity is a religion of evidences. Nowhere in the Bible is a person encouraged to believe in God without some kind of evidence. The evidences offered are the evidences of history, as recorded in the Bible. In order for the conclusion to fall apart, the evidences of its eyewitnesses must be deconstructed into failure. Without that, atheism's arguments fall for lack of its own set of evidences.