Changes

For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was.  While there is solid, mathematical and scientific evidence that the Big Bang may have occurred (ex: the constant expansion of the universe), it is nothing more than a vague concept to speculate that the universe may have begun as a single point.  They can 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. 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.  While there is solid, mathematical and scientific evidence that the Big Bang may have occurred (ex: the constant expansion of the universe), it is nothing more than a vague concept to speculate that the universe may have begun as a single point.  They can 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. Their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not mean that it did not occur.

As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean.  That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true.  And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false.  When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his [[faith]] that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source, because humans are always right, and have always been right about the credibility of their sources (ex: George W. Bush was right about their being WMDs in Iraq).  In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it. And, of course, a child's parents have gotten their beliefs directly from God, because God frequently sits down with people and tells them the way things really are.

As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean.  That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true.  And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false.  When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his [[faith]] that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source, because humans are always right, and have always been right about the credibility of their sources (ex: George W. Bush was right about there being WMDs in Iraq).  In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it. And, of course, a child's parents have gotten their beliefs directly from God, because God frequently sits down with people and tells them the way things really are.

Finally, the fact that the believer did not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false, although it may call for more analysis on the part of the believer in order to strengthen his or her argument.

Finally, the fact that the believer did not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false, although it may call for more analysis on the part of the believer in order to strengthen his or her argument.