Brief Answer:
A being like God is beyond our complete comprehension, as God exists in realms and has characteristics far different from our everyday experiences. If I could fully grasp God, I would assume this “God” is merely a human invention, because human inventions I can understand as they come from my similar perspective.
Detailed Answer:
Do you expect to?
What would make you think you should understand what God is like? Think about it. If I could totally understand everything about God, all the choices and actions and attributes, then I would just assume this was only a god invented by humans. I can understand Baal, Vishnu, Zeus, and other gods completely, they sound much like me and other humans. But I cannot, and never will fully understand the God of the Bible. And why would we expect to?
Why should I expect to be able to comprehensively wrap my mind around a Being beyond three-dimensional space and time, transcending all of nature that I am familiar with, Holy, and having other characteristics far beyond my pay grade and experience?
While I can understand a lot as God made us in his image (whatever that means), and the Bible, messengers he sent, Jesus providing a personal disclosure of himself, and my personal relationship with God reveal aspects and facts about this God, yet, I cannot fully understand this God, and so will have times where his thoughts and actions are beyond my understanding, and even beyond my liking. This is why trust is so important. I think even when we really gain the wider perspective being in Heaven with God brings, God will still be beyond us to the point of requiring our trust. And I look forward to this situation as a God I could entirely understand sounds like a boring God, and I expect wonder, holiness, and endless interesting and even surprising phenomenon.
This is basic logic
Basic logic tells us we don’t need to fully explain everything about and answer or explanation to accept it as the best explanation. The validity of an explanation relies on the evidence and the standards we use to determine truth.
Admittedly, some people do avoid serious questions about God by saying, “Well, God is mysterious so we just have to trust.” This is weak and wrong when used to avoid a serious question, but entirely appropriate, accurate, and appreciating the reality of the situation in other instances.
For example, there is no appropriate analogy I know to explain the Trinity. And this is not surprising as we are trying to correlate something in nature and our natural experience with something transcending nature. Yet, while not fully comprehending, the biblical Trinity is the best explanation of the evidence and necessities of the cause of the Universe and greatest possible God, as it avoids contradictions found in Islam’s concept of Allah, and disproof from science for every other belief system’s cause of the Universe (covered in other blogs, books, and FAQs). Thus, if the biblical God is supported by compelling evidence, our inability to fully understand God cannot invalidate that explanation.
Consider this situation: astronauts discover complex machinery on Mars that functions as an engine, exhibiting a level of complexity natural processes could not produce. Even without knowing who designed it or how it arrived there, we can recognize this machinery is the result of intentional design. The challenges or uncertainties we face in understanding an explanation do not diminish the positive evidence supporting it or its superiority over alternative explanations.
