A recent tweet exchange made me think that the common misunderstanding it revealed was worth exploring further. The exchange went something like this:<\/p>\n
Me:<\/strong> You can\u2019t explain the universe without God.<\/p>\n Him:<\/strong> How do u explain God then?<\/p>\n Me:<\/strong> You don’t: he explains you.<\/p>\n Him:<\/strong> The greatest cop-out ever…<\/p>\n The misunderstanding \u2013 and it\u2019s one that flourishes as much in the Dawkins-Hitchens conglomerate as in the mentally less well endowed specimens that answer my tweets – \u00a0is that God is in the category of things that need explaining: he isn\u2019t. He is in a category that has one member: himself \u2013 not created, indivisible, beyond nature, omniscient, omnipotent, omni-present. If he could<\/em> be \u201c<\/em>explained\u201d<\/em> he would no longer be God.<\/p>\n So, if an answer can be found to questions like, \u201cwho made God\u201d or \u201chow do you explain God\u201d it means the questions have been asked of something that isn\u2019t God. It makes little sense to ask for a cause of something that is the First Cause. If the cause could be found, that god would not be the first cause and, therefore, not be God.<\/p>\n God is the great explainer; he is to be worshipped, loved and enjoyed. Not explained.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A recent tweet exchange made me think that the common misunderstanding it revealed was worth exploring further. The exchange went something like this: Me: You can\u2019t explain the universe without God. Him: How do u explain God then? Me: You … Continue reading