ABSTRACT
It is shown that divine ineffability is self-referentially incoherent and does not follow from divine transcendence. Heidegger’s accusation of ontotheology unwarrantedly assumes that God could not have created humans with the ability to prove God’s existence. The application of concepts to God does not imply that God is subordinate to the concept, but merely describes the properties God has. It is not guilty of idolatry given that the arguments of natural theology are sound arguments and therefore their conclusions correspond with the reality about God. Concerning apophatic theology, I argue that there is no adequate justification for a notion of divine transcendence that would rule out the possibility of God creating entities that are similar to him in some positive ways, which would be the basis for them knowing him and speaking of him in some limited positive and partially univocal ways. God’s infinity and transcendence only imply that we cannot understand him fully; they do not imply that we cannot know that he exists on the basis of evidence. The arguments of natural theology do not nail God down but point to a transcendent First Cause who is sovereign and deserving of worship.
