How could that superfluity be any kind of coherent explanation ? Its convoluted, ad hoc assumptions not only violate the Ockham but also are meanisngless as we ignostics/itheists/ theological non-cognitivists find. My previous essay describes how Hi carries no sort of explanation and is just a meaningless superfluity.
How might persons have a relationship with a factually meaningless entity, albeit semantically meaningful? How then could theists verify Him when then in principle no one can, with His incoherent attributes and lack of referents to be factually meaningful?
How then can persons have a relationship with a non-verified and factually meaningless entity?