musKeeto:
Lol, the fact a kid doesn't know calculus doesn't make calculus incomprehensible, does it?

Anyways, so you agree that as a theist, you argue with incomplete knowledge? Your arguments are simply based on a part?

@ bold, game over Anony.

Logicboy03:


You are not making any sense. Is this desperation? We know that the earth is spherical from our perception. Simple. From another being's perceptio, it could be different. Is tat hard to grasp.

My stance is in your bold. We cant know beyond our senses and perception. That is a fact. Simple and clear. Logical.

At a point in history, we also "knew" that the earth was flat from our perception.

You, on the other hand are illogical.


God is beyond our perception from your own argument and yet, you are claiming that we will grow up and understand him. Are we going to evolve some new perception? A second brain?

Strawman argument: I never said that God is beyond perception and I also do not hold that we cannot know something beyond our physical perception. I said we cannot know Him fully but the time will come when He will be fully revealed to us and we will know Him fully as we are known.

If you insist that it is illogical, then you must also insist that a statement like "we don't know logicboy fully but a time will come when we will" must equally be illogical.

musKeeto:
Lol, the fact a kid doesn't know calculus doesn't make calculus incomprehensible, does it?

It does as far as the kid is concerned.

Anyways, so you agree that as a theist, you argue with incomplete knowledge? Your arguments are simply based on a part?

In the same way as an atheist, you are arguing with incomplete knowledge whenever you argue based on a subject you don't know fully.

Whenever you argue mathematics, chemistry, biology, programming, law, politics or any subject whatsoever, you are arguing in part because you don't know the subject fully.

In fact I will go on to challenge you to name one thing you know fully apart from yourself. If you can't name one such thing, should we then write you off as totally ignorant?

Mr_Anony:
The translation is ERV. What's your point?

that the context may have been a reference to knowledge.

Actually, i have never seen that portion translated in that fashion befor today.

And i dont know how many other translation is in consonant with that your translation

Mr_Anony:
At a point in history, we also "knew" that the earth was flat from our perception.

I thought my argument was illogical, so why are you shifting now to a useless argument? What point are you really trying to make?

Did we know that the earth was flat? Did we study the earh and come to the conclusion that it was flat? Or did people assume it was flat because they were walking on a flat surface?

Mr_Anony:
Strawman argument: I never said that God is beyond perception and I also do not hold that we cannot know something beyond our physical perception. I said we cannot know Him fully but the time will come when He will be fully revealed to us and we will know Him fully as we are known.

If you insist that it is illogical, then you must also insist that a statement like "we don't know logicboy fully but a time will come when we will" must equally be illogical.

You are arguing nonsense. The possibility of knowing logicboy is there. Afterall I am a human being, we have and can learn about human beings if they make their info available. However, it is foolish (but not illogical) to say that a time will come when you will fully know me. You may never know me fully. It is not a "will" but a "maybe".



Concerning god, he is already beyond our senses. You say that we dont fully understand him (assuming we even know anything tangible about him or her) s how are we going to know the part about him that is beyond our senses? Is that a logical statement or a belief in heaven? Dont mix logic and belief please

Mr anony, my argument is very simple. God being incomprehensive means he is by his Nature impossible to understand. As a result can not come within human knowledge at any time. That's not the same with a subject that is not fully grasped. There is partial understanding at least.

Just as calculus is to the baby, God is to us. Simple.

truthislight:

that the context may have been a reference to knowledge.

Actually, i have never seen that portion translated in that fashion befor today.

And i dont know how many other translation is in consonant with that your translation

Of course it is in reference to knowledge. The question is knowledge of who?

On that perfect day, we shall see God and everything will be revealed.

I can give you a few more verses if you like

Consider: Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.

Compare with 1John3:2-3
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Also see Revelations 22:3-5
And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

Kay 17: Mr anony, my argument is very simple. God being incomprehensive means he is by his Nature impossible to understand. As a result can not come within human knowledge at any time. That's not the same with a subject that is not fully grasped. There is partial understanding at least.

Just as calculus is to the baby, God is to us. Simple.

I am saying that we know God partially.

You have misrepresented my analogy. I did not use calculus as a metaphor for God. I used calculus to show that there are aspects of reality the baby cannot grasp yet until it reaches maturity. I'll quote myself again.

Mr Anony: Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.

Mr_Anony:
I don't see the difference


Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.
The time will come when all will be revealed and we will know as we are known.

"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us. Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes. Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

Bravo! Take a bow sir!!!

Mr_Anony:
I am saying that we know God partially.

You have misrepresented my analogy. I did not use calculus as a metaphor for God. I used calculus to show that there are aspects of reality the baby cannot grasp yet until it reaches maturity. I'll quote myself again.

you are deliberately ignoring the fact that its a permanent inability to understand God at all, it doesn't leave space for future understanding.

God would be still be comprehensible if we can understand him sometime in the future.

And the dictionary meaning for incomprehensible doesn't mean partial understanding, its null, zero, absolutely zero knowledge. If we can't grasp it yet, then its not incomprehensible, its actually comprehensible cos we are able to understand and appreciate!!

Mr_Anony:
It does as far as the kid is concerned.

That doesn't make it incomprehensible. In fact, the kid would be honest if he says 'I don't understand calculus', rather than saying 'Calculus is incomprehensible'.

Mr_Anony:
In the same way as an atheist, you are arguing with incomplete knowledge whenever you argue based on a subject you don't know fully.

Lol. Is this an admission that you argue with incomplete knowledge?

Mr_Anony:
Whenever you argue mathematics, chemistry, biology, programming, law, politics or any subject whatsoever, you are arguing in part because you don't know the subject fully.
In fact I will go on to challenge you to name one thing you know fully apart from yourself. If you can't name one such thing, should we then write you off as totally ignorant?

Trust me, no one's calling anyone totally ignorant. Can anyone be totally knowledgeable?
But when you claim to know 'GOD', and determine that this GOD is the basis for MORALITY (RIGHT/WRONG), then you claim to 'know' something no one else does.
You say GOD is INCOMPREHENSIBLE, then you say you keep growing in knowledge of HIM. This is a complete contradiction.
Then you say

Mr_Anony: Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.

The baby's knowledge isn't enough. Lol, then aren't we all babies?

Everyone can see how Anony is behaving irrationally and sticking to his illogical claim that we can know God beyond our senses.


Yet, he has the nerve to call me illogical

Kay 17: you are deliberately ignoring the fact that its a permanent inability to understand God at all, it doesn't leave space for future understanding.

God would be still be comprehensible if we can understand him sometime in the future.

And the dictionary meaning for incomprehensible doesn't mean partial understanding, its null, zero, absolutely zero knowledge. If we can't grasp it yet, then its not incomprehensible, its actually comprehensible cos we are able to understand and appreciate!!

My friend, remember that "incomprehensible" was not a word I used but one you chose. I pointed out that a more accurate description of knowing God is that we have partial knowledge of Him as human beings. I have also shown you from the bible that God will make everything clear to us in the end.

So I really don't see your contention here. You have defined God inaccurately and you are insisting that God must fit your definition even after I have shown you that your definition does not accurately depict God.

Logicboy03: Everyone can see how Anony is behaving irrationally and sticking to his illogical claim that we can know God beyond our senses.


Yet, he has the nerve to call me illogical

Yawn..

Mr_Anony:
My friend, remember that "incomprehensible" was not a word I used but one you chose. I pointed out that a more accurate description of knowing God is that we have partial knowledge of Him as human beings. I have also shown you from the bible that God will make everything clear to us in the end.

So I really don't see your contention here. You have defined God inaccurately and you are insisting that God must fit your definition even after I have shown you that your definition does not accurately depict God.

So KAY was right.. GOD cannot be INCOMPREHENSIBLE..

This is a really cheap argument coming from you. Let's have a look...

musKeeto:
That doesn't make it incomprehensible. In fact, the kid would be honest if he says 'I don't understand calculus', rather than saying 'Calculus is incomprehensible'.

Strawman: I have not equated calculus to God.

Lol. Is this an admission that you argue with incomplete knowledge?

Have you ever argued with complete knowledge?

Trust me, no one's calling anyone totally ignorant. Can anyone be totally knowledgeable?
But when you claim to know 'GOD', and determine that this GOD is the basis for MORALITY (RIGHT/WRONG), then you claim to 'know' something no one else does.
You say GOD is INCOMPREHENSIBLE, then you say you keep growing in knowledge of HIM. This is a complete contradiction.

If you want to play on semantics then go ahead and knock yourself out. I have made it clear that God is not totally unknowable but we can grow in our knowledge of Him. "incomprehensible" was not a word I used and I have continuously pointed out that a more accurate picture is that we grow in the knowledge of God. Why are you trying to misrepresent my stance and then attack the stance that you have misrepresented?

Do I know God? Yes I do. That I don't know Him completely doesn't mean I don't know Him. You argument here is just like saying to a doctor "You don't know medicine" just because the doctor says he doesn't know and cannot know all of medicine, and then going further to say that the doctor cannot tell you what to take for your headache because he doesn't know all of medicine. This is simply called being irrational.

The baby's knowledge isn't enough. Lol, then aren't we all babies?

Yes we are all babies but this doesn't mean that our knowledge of God is equal. If we draw closer to God, He draws closer to us.

Ok, at least everyone including mr anony agrees God can't be incomprehensive.

musKeeto:
So KAY was right.. GOD cannot be INCOMPREHENSIBLE..

Is that what Kay said? Please quote

Kay 17: Ok, at least everyone including mr anony agrees God can't be incomprehensive.

Just so we don't misrepresent what I have agreed to, I hold that God is not incomprehensible but He is beyond our human knowledge and on the last day, He will make Himself known to us.

This is nice. Others experiencing the kind brain washing and anonysm I've been dealing with

Total nonsense

wiegraf: This is nice. Others experiencing the kind brain washing and anonysm I've been dealing with

Total nonsense

Lololol, I laugh in Swahili............of course brainwashing/anonyism = anything y'all don't agree with. Why not?

Mr_Anony: This is a really cheap argument coming from you. Let's have a look...


Strawman: I have not equated calculus to God.


Have you ever argued with complete knowledge?

Lol. Is this pride? Is it so difficult for you to answer the question. Do you argue with incomplete knowledge?

Mr_Anony:
If you want to play on semantics then go ahead and knock yourself out. I have made it clear that God is not totally unknowable but we can grow in our knowledge of Him. "incomprehensible" was not a word I used and I have continuously pointed out that a more accurate picture is that we grow in the knowledge of God. Why are you trying to misrepresent my stance and then attack the stance that you have misrepresented?

I'm not representing your stance. SIMPLY put, GOD's not incomprehensible thus your reluctance to use that word as per its dictionary meaning.

Mr_Anony:
Do I know God? Yes I do. That I don't know Him completely doesn't mean I don't know Him. You argument here is just like saying to a doctor "You don't know medicine" just because the doctor says he doesn't know and cannot know all of medicine, and then going further to say that the doctor cannot tell you what to take for your headache because he doesn't know all of medicine. This is simply called being irrational.

What would be irrational would be for the doctor to say 'I know this medicine, and this medicine works because the instructions on the pack say so. You may not understand the instructions on the package, but trust me, it will work for you also, if you just believe.'.

Mr_Anony:
Yes we are all babies but this doesn't mean that our knowledge of God is equal. If we draw closer to God, He draws closer to us.

Lol, lots of confused babies in the world then..

musKeeto:
Lol. Is this pride? Is it so difficult for you to answer the question. Do you argue with incomplete knowledge?

Lol, is this pride? Why is it so difficult for you to answer the question. Have you ever argued with complete knowledge?

I'm not representing your stance. SIMPLY put, GOD's not incomprehensible thus your reluctance to use that word as per its dictionary meaning.

As you have said, you are not representing my stance

What would be irrational would be for the doctor to say 'I know this medicine, and this medicine works because the instructions on the pack say so. You may not understand the instructions on the package, but trust me, it will work for you also, if you just believe.'.

A doctor is more likely to say: 'I know this medicine, and this medicine works because I have studied it. You may not understand exactly how it works, but trust me, it will work for you if you just take it as prescribed on the pack.

Lol, lots of confused babies in the world then..

perhaps

This guy with a microphone is just simply dumb!! He starts by asking the atheist about the possibility of the validity of god but then goes on to rigmarole on issues that don't in any way help his own position\argument on the validity of same god.

He's just trying imitate his father Kent Hovind and clearly he's doing a terrible job at that. Kent Hovind is the real deal, his son Eric is just clueless.

From what I understand from mr anony, is God is incomprehensible to us until a particular future date. Right?!

wiegraf: This is nice. Others experiencing the kind brain washing and anonysm I've been dealing with

Total nonsense

One only needs to look at the title of this thread

Logicboy03:


One only needs to look at the title of this thread

Lol...

Trying to redefine incomprehensible.. Chai...

musKeeto:
Lol...

Trying to redefine incomprehensible.. Chai...

Logicboy03:

He doesn't realise that by his definiton, the following also become incomprehensible: Islam, Mathematics, Swimming, Frosbel

Kay 17: From what I understand from mr anony, is God is incomprehensible to us until a particular future date. Right?!

I have issues with the way you are trying to use the word here. . .

I'll say it like this: Today we know God in part but we will know Him fully on the last day.

Mr_Anony:
I have issues with the way you are trying to use the word here. . .

I'll say it like this: Today we know God in part but we will know Him fully on the last day.

Logic and theology do not mostly meet each other at an intersect


1) You are admitting that you are arguing for God with half baked knowledge

2)You are also implying that we will get a knowledge beyond our senses before we die?

Mr_Anony:
Lololol, I laugh in Swahili............of course brainwashing/anonyism = anything y'all don't agree with. Why not?

Don't group us together, unlike you we're not sheeple. In this particular case though, anyone with free will capable of simple reason would consider you wrong. And as always, dishonest.

Well, opinion has little to do with it, fact is you're conspicuously wrong, in any language including swahili. Except maybe in anony. You make this $hit up as you go, shoot yourself in the foot, then backtrack fairly comically. Observe this buffoonry for instance

Mr_Anony:
Interesting, would you mind defining God as you know Him to be and what exactly makes God a logically incoherent concept

Kay 17:

Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, incomprehensible, all good, perfect.

Mr_Anony:
Now which of the above makes Him logically incoherent?

Kay 17: All the attributes taken together make him incoherent. For example, for an incomprehensible being has all those attributes?!

You know this translates to god cannot be comprehensible, yes?

Mr_Anony: Incomprehensible simply means He cannot be completely known because our human senses are ill-equipped to comprehend Him fully. There is nothing logically incoherent with that.

That's not what incomprehensible means.
You already agree with kay, so you set about redefining the word, blindly, and in a very honest way. (Spot the sarcasm)

Kay 17:

Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

not able to be understood

This is correct

Mr_Anony:
To be more precise, it means that He is so great that we as humans can't fully grasp Him with our limited knowledge.

Incomprehensible? In what language? In anony?

......

So then after the mix up is cleared, you've redefined the term to mean something that the opposite of the word (we'll get to that), we proceed to

Mr_Anony:
My friend, remember that "incomprehensible" was not a word I used but one you chose.

My friend, you didn't give any word that describes what you are talking about. You yourself had no problem using the word incomprehensible, then of course duly set about redefining it. So, considering he was not wrong unlike you, why make it sound like he was in the wrong?

Mr_Anony:
I pointed out that a more accurate description of knowing God is that we have partial knowledge of Him as human beings. I have also shown you from the bible that God will make everything clear to us in the end.

This description amounts to comprehensible, just difficult to understand. Comprehensible is the very opposite of incomprehensible, you know that, yes?

And I doubt most xtians agree with your definition as it relates to your god, but we can ignore that, for now....

Mr_Anony:
So I really don't see your contention here.

So, you agree god is not incomprehensible, perfect. You guys aren't in contention, yes? In essence all the above, as kay was stating his points, you agreed with him yet never explicitly said so?


And then this:

musKeeto:
So KAY was right.. GOD cannot be INCOMPREHENSIBLE..

Mr_Anony:
Is that what Kay said? Please quote

What the 4k are you not in contention over then?
I mean WTF
4k
Do you even understand what your position is?

Kay is misrepresenting you, do you know the meaning of the word? You continued to use the word yourself..