If God is a verb then god is an action and not an entity. God can then be perceived but not known. If god is a verb then god does not act because he is action.

Is it language that is the stumbling block or is it the perception of what words mean? (hehehe)

Also, I don’t know if I really said anything. This was attributed to Sindee Clark. But I guess it is quoted here with purpose.

Although it seems to me to be intuitively correct, why is something not real unless it is perceived. That which is not perceived is not directly known, that is obvious. However, are things that have passed out of our perception temporarily then not real until they are once again perceived?

Another thought: If we are to say that nothing is real unless it is perceived, then why that sometimes we perceive things that are not real? If we perceive them, are they not real to us, just not in the way that “common sense” would define things?

Also, is the implication of the second paragraph “God is a verb”? Is this why he is not directly perceptible? And if he is a verb, how can God come to bear any sort of action? If God is not an entity by an action, how then can God be said to do or think anything?

Lastly, the most important point raised here is that it is language that is the major stumbling block to any sort of discourse on God. It is not possible for anybody to know what a person means by way of saying “I believe God exists”, or the converse, without an explicit delineation of the terms and an exploration of their meaning. In such a metaphysical discussion, even the language of the definitions and explanations usually needs elucidation.