Discussions relate to the existence of God and proofs reappear in numerous discussions. To know about God requires that what is known is comprehended and is the context of a human’s awareness. Knowledge cannot be considered such, if a human being cannot be aware in some manner of what is being known. The usual meaning of ‘God’ is a being with attributes such as, for example, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, eternal, unlimited by space and time, and so on. Yet it is not possible to point to anything that a human being may know or identify that would fit these attributes. One may point to the universe as infinite in some way, and be satisfied that such an attribute is known, without necessarily having direct knowledge of God. Meaning for a human being, however, requires that it be within and part of the person, otherwise knowledge can only be of an object - such knowledge derives its meaning from sense responses to that object. If a human being cannot obtain meaning within self, then speculation and scepticism result. Meaning, however, may be attributed to an idea that would be intelligently constructed as an idea of god. This would be a synthesis of an idea and the meaning is part of that idea.
The argument may be stated another way. A human being can say ‘God’ and attribute additional words to the term, to be satisfied that the word has been used correctly in that language. Sensibly it is not possible to point to an object called god and then prove that the object is absolute, all-powerful, ever-present, and so on. It is sensible to note the practice of using the word god in our culture and consider ‘a meaning’ as widely accepted. The historical context may be a starting point for the question, “Can I state the word ‘God’ with meaning?”
Theological writings over many centuries show, (when all is said and done), that only God can be the meaning. We can only ‘know’ of God through revelation and this is a gift, as are all attributes or fruits of the Holy Spirit.