Changes

:"To say that an ‘unie’ possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature—while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man’s wisdom and that the nature of an ‘unie’ is unknowable—contributes nothing to our understanding of ‘unie’ or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an ‘unie.’ ... To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way."  George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3.

:"To say that an ‘unie’ possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature—while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man’s wisdom and that the nature of an ‘unie’ is unknowable—contributes nothing to our understanding of ‘unie’ or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an ‘unie.’ ... To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way."  George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3.

A theist might respond to this line of reasoning by challenging as [[non sequitor]] the argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it."   

A theist might respond to this line of reasoning by challenging as [[non sequitur]] the argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it."   

For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was.  They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point.  They speculate about what it might have been like.  But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about.  That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept.  It is simply one that is poorly defined.  But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not mean that it did not occur.

For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was.  They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point.  They speculate about what it might have been like.  But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about.  That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept.  It is simply one that is poorly defined.  But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not mean that it did not occur.