truthislight:

my brother Annony,

this below was the translation in question.

please compare the traslation you quoted up there with the one here below and see if they say the same thing:




this was the translation in question.


"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",


this ^^^ is the part that got me wandering and i cant accept that getting the knowledge of God depend on that ^^^ as it was presented.

will not.

My friend, it simply means that now we know God in part but in the future we will know Him fully. I don't see the big problem there.

Logicboy03:



Twice you have said that my statement isnt clear without showing how.


Everyone can see your true colours

My friend, I made a simple request: Please explain to me how your conclusion follows from your premises because i really can't see it. It shouldn't be so difficult to explain if you really knew what you were arguing about.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I made a simple request: Please explain to me how your conclusion follows from your premises because i really can't see it. It shouldn't be so difficult to explain if you really knew what you were arguing about.

Yawn. Sagamite tactics.


I have tabled a simple premise and conclusion. Either you dont know how to understand simple sentences or you are acting foolish on purpose.

If my premise doesnt meet the conclusion, then show how it is so.


I wrote 3 simple sentences. Either you are foolish or acting dubious again

Logicboy03:


Premise;

a) God is an omniscient, and objective moral law giver

b) Humans can not be objective because everything they know comes from a bias of human perception- the five sense and human reasoning.

Conclusion
c) Therefore humans can never know these aspects of God.

Mr_Anony:

My friend, it simply means that now we know God in part but in the future we will know Him fully. I don't see the big problem there.

it is presumptiouse to put "God" at that place altogether.

See:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things,
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)
..............

That is kingjames version.

There is nothing like we need to see God befor we will come to know what is God's knowledge.

The word God there is wrong. QED.

Funny thread...

musKeeto: Funny thread...

A shame when someone claims not to understand 3 simple sentences in order to avoid being exposed;



;

Premise;

a) God is an omniscient, and objective moral law giver

b) Humans can not be objective because everything they know comes from a bias of human perception- the five sense and human reasoning.

Conclusion
c) Therefore humans can never know these aspects of God.

honeychild:
incomprehensible: impossible or [/b] very difficult [b] to understand. I think the contention here is that while Kay17 uses the word incomprehensible to mean impossible to understand, anony uses it to mean difficult to understand.
And quite Frankly, I honestly do not see how God being difficult to understand Is a problem. Do we really need to know all there Is to know about God? A child, for instance may find a parent's way of handling a matter difficult to understand. When I was a child, the standard response I got when adults around me did something incomprehensible to me was: when you get older you will understand. And there are many things I did understand as I got older. Why do we deny God the right to tell us: I am like this and like that, but as for some other parts of me, when you get older I will show you?

When did incomprehensible begin to mean difficult?! What kind of planet are you in? Ok, assuming we will know God sooner THEN he is not incomprehensive.

Lol.. I tire o..
Incomprehensible means impossible to be understood.
The dictionary is not a Bible, you can't just throw meanings on words, you know..

Kay 17:

When did incomprehensible begin to mean difficult?! What kind of planet are you in? Ok, assuming we will know God sooner THEN he is not incomprehensive.

I actually got my definition from Encarta. That is the only dictionary I have on my PC.

truthislight:

i dont understand you my friend.

Is it true that we cannot have knowledge unless we can see God?


"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
............
Since we have not see God to arrived at knowledge how then do we get to be saved?

Is my pointing this out a crime to you?

No. It is not. Only that the whole thing seem pre-planed.

Reyginus: No. It is not. Only that the whole thing seem pre-planed.

i dont play dirty.

You only saw me here because the bible was quoted.

truthislight:

i dont play dirty.

You only saw me here because the bible was quoted.

Thank you bros.


Reyginius has changed. He has turned to the christian that will always support a christian over an atheist even if the christian is wrong

Mr_Anony:
lolololol...........someone is getting really frustrated

ok

truthislight:

i dont play dirty.

You only saw me here because the bible was quoted.

Okay. I understand. Though you wouldn't.

truthislight:

it is presumptiouse to put "God" at that place altogether.

See:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things,
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face (whose face shall we see on the perfect day?): now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.(known by who?)" (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)
..............

That is kingjames version.

There is nothing like we need to see God befor we will come to know what is God's knowledge.

The word God there is wrong. QED.

Lol, no it isn't.

The verse does not say that unless we physically see God that we won't know Him rather it says that our knowledge of God to day is like blurry vision but the time will come when our vision will be made clear and we will know God fully. Notice that vision/seeing is being used as a simile for knowing.

Let us not play the translation vs translation game. I have shown you multiple translations that show that the verse is talking about knowledge of God. Even the KJV is referring to the knowledge of God though it does not mention God explicitly.

musKeeto: Lol.. I tire o..
Incomprehensible means impossible to be understood.
The dictionary is not a Bible, you can't just throw meanings on words, you know..

1.
a. Difficult or impossible to understand or comprehend; unintelligible: incomprehensible jargon.
b. Impossible to know or fathom: incomprehensible mysteries.
2. Archaic Having no limits; boundless.

- thefreedictionary.com

Logicboy03:
Yawn. Sagamite tactics.


I have tabled a simple premise and conclusion. Either you dont know how to understand simple sentences or you are acting foolish on purpose.

If my premise doesnt meet the conclusion, then show how it is so.


I wrote 3 simple sentences. Either you are foolish or acting dubious again

If I was to make an argument that goes thus:

Premise 1. GEJ is the president of Nigeria from Bayelsa state
Premise 2: All Kaduna women cried for their governor
Conclusion: Therefore Niger-Delta boys don't go to school.

I think you would have every right to ask me how my premises lead to my conclusion.

Similarly, I do not see how your premises follow from each other so I have asked you to explain it to me. Personal insults do not count as explanations. If it is so obvious as you seem to be insinuating, why don't you ask someone else to explain it to me because clearly it isn't obvious to me.

I never knew the day would come when I would meet someone who claims to be an intelligent fellow but would rather rain insults than explain his argument. Makes me wonder if you really want to debate at all. So far at the moment you sound to me like a blind fanatic who would rather insult his opponent than explain what he believes.

Mr_Anony:
If I was to make an argument that goes thus:

Premise 1. GEJ is the president of Nigeria from Bayelsa state
Premise 2: All Kaduna women cried for their governor
Conclusion: Therefore Niger-Delta boys don't go to school.

I think you would have every right to ask me how my premises lead to my conclusion.

Similarly, I do not see how your premises follow from each other so I have asked you to explain it to me. Personal insults do not count as explanations. If it is so obvious as you seem to be insinuating, why don't you ask someone else to explain it to me because clearly it isn't obvious to me.

I never knew the day would come when I would meet someone who claims to be an intelligent fellow but would rather rain insults than explain his argument. Makes me wonder if you really want to debate at all. So far at the moment you sound to me like a blind fanatic who would rather insult his opponent than explain what he believes.

I didnt read past the first four lines. I made a bet that you wouldnt point out what was wrong or what didnt follow in my premise/conclusion. You randomly wrote three sentences and then compared it to my argument. Apples and oranges.


Yawn. Dubious Anony.


Go and sleep.

Logicboy03:



I didnt read past the first four lines. I made a bet that you wouldnt point out what was wrong or what didnt follow in my premise/conclusion. You randomly wrote three sentences and then compared it to my argument. Apples and oranges.


Yawn. Dubious Anony.


Go and sleep.

Actually, that's exactly how your argument looks to me: three unrelated sentences.

Logical mastah

Mr_Anony:

1.
a. Difficult or impossible to understand or comprehend; unintelligible: incomprehensible jargon.
b. Impossible to know or fathom: incomprehensible mysteries.
2. Archaic Having no limits; boundless.

- thefreedictionary.com

Yes, I know, we aren't fussing over definitions here, abi?

Kay 17:

Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

not able to be understood

I don't think he could be more clearer about what his definition of incomprehensible is, yes? And note, this is the default meaning, the meaning you will find in ALL dictionaries, unlike the one you want to use. The 'in-' in 'incomprehensible' should give you a clue, yes? See for yourself

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=incomprehensible+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Either ways...

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.

So, god cannot be incomprehensible then. Or do you need someone to hold your hand and show you how?

*(He even states...

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

...just a bit later, as anyone with a thinking brain would deduce, to which you reply

Mr_Anony:
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.

...continuing that convo though)*

Mr_Anony:
I am saying that we know God partially.

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

Mr_Anony:
Is that what Kay said? Please quote

On the same page, no less.

And you continue to drop jewels like

Mr_Anony:
Lol, What are you on about? Kay used the word "incomprehensible" to mean unknowable. I did not agree with him but made my point clear that that we know God in part but one day He will reveal all to us.

Besides, "incomprehensible" is not always used as impossible to understand. It is also used in speech to denote something complex or difficult to understand. Kay was using it strictly as "unknowable" and I didn't agree with him.

So when muskeeto was trying to make it seem like we were in agreement even when it was clear that we weren't, I asked him to quote. He hasn't.

I can sense you are getting a bit frustrated judging from your tone so if you like call me "idiot" and "moron" from now until tomorrow and if you like get really mad and strangle your keyboard.

So, my bumbling genius, when did kay say dog is incomprehensible?
And what was muskeeto doing? Insidiously implying you were lying by pointing out you were in agreement?

If you are a bumbling m.oron, I will tell you you are a bumbiling mo.ron. Especially if smug while whoring for dog, nothing wrong there.

wiegraf: Logical mastah



Yes, I know, we aren't fussing over definitions here, abi?



I don't think he could be more clearer about what his definition of incomprehensible is, yes? And note, this is the default meaning, the meaning you will find in ALL dictionaries, unlike the one you want to use. The 'in-' in 'incomprehensible' should give you a clue, yes? See for yourself

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=incomprehensible+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Either ways...



So, god cannot be incomprehensible then. Or do you need someone to hold your hand and show you how?

*(He even states...

...just a bit later, as anyone with a thinking brain would deduce, to which you reply

...continuing that convo though)*









On the same page, no less.

And you continue to drop jewels like



So, my bumbling genius, when did kay say dog is incomprehensible?
And what was muskeeto doing? Insidiously implying you were lying by pointing out you were in agreement?

If you are a bumbling m.oron, I will tell you you are a bumbiling mo.ron. Especially if smug while whoring for dog, nothing wrong there.

Lol,your frustration is showing. I don't remember talking about dogs......are you sure we have been having the same conversation?

What you failed to notice is when Kay uses the word he means "impossible to know" but I read the word to mean "complex".

So let us look at it substituting the word "incomprehensible":

Kay starts by defining God as:

Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, all good, perfect and "impossible to know".

What I read is: "Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, all good, perfect and "complex".

So when Kay asks how can God have all these attributes and still be "impossible to know"?

I don't see it as logically incoherent because God having those properties does not contradict His complexity. Therefore I point out the nature of our knowledge of God. I even use the analogy of calculus and a baby to show clearly that I am pointing at a complex phenomenon and not an impossible one.

We argue along for a while and it appears that we agree that God cannot be "incomprehensible" but because I see incomprehensible as something very complex rather than impossible I restate in my own words exactly what I have agreed to so that someone doesn't play a fast one on me in the future by forcing a word into my mouth in a way I didn't use. If Kay 17 agreed to the meaning I have provided, it shouldn't be a big deal for him to simply agree but he doesn't.

in fact he continues by asking:

"is God is incomprehensible(unknowable) to us until a particular future date. Right?!"

(this read to me like so we don't know God at all until one day will know Him?)

to which I reply:

"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."

(once again I am making it clear that we know God in part and one day He will grant us full knowledge)

It is either you didn't understand what was going on here or you are also merely looking for words and statements to twist. I have made my position very clear. We can either choose to represent each other's positions accurately or to dishonestly twist them and add baseless insults on top. I am not bothered either way. I will still state what I have said the way I have stated it and make my points clear as possible as I always have and then whenever you grow up you can join the discussion.

Lol, the calculus analogy's resurrected.

Anony, is God incomprehensible (impossible to know) or complex(difficult to understand)?

musKeeto: Lol, the calculus analogy's resurrected.

Anony, is God incomprehensible (impossible to know) or complex(difficult to understand)?

God is not impossible to know but He can be said to be complex. God is so great and immensely vast and what we know of Him is what He has chosen to reveal to us.

Mr_Anony:
God is not impossible to know but He can be said to be complex. God is so great and immensely vast and what we know of Him is what He has chosen to reveal to us.

So you know in part, just like everyone else. Good.

Also, God isn't incomprehensible, he's only complex.

musKeeto:

So you know in part, just like everyone else. Good.

Also, God isn't incomprehensible, he's only complex.

What I know of God is what God has revealed to me of Himself. If you draw closer to God, He will reveal more of Himself to you.

Mr_Anony:
What I know of God is what God has revealed to me of Himself. If you draw closer to God, He will reveal more of Himself to you.

And he has revealed this to you through Jesus Christ? Why? Are you special?

musKeeto:
And he has revealed this to you through Jesus Christ? Why? Are you special?

Lol, Oh I am not necessarily "special" God has made Himself manifest to all of us through Christ including you. You cannot deny that Christ has also been made manifest to you. The question before you is will you accept Him?

As I said earlier; If you draw close to God, God will draw close to you. If you choose not to come to God, He will not force you to Himself. God treats everyone fairly and it will be unfair for Him to force you into righteousness.

I can turn your question around and ask you: What makes you so special? Why should God force the revelation of Himself upon you if you are not interested in the first place?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Oh I am not necessarily "special" God has made Himself manifest to all of us through Christ including you. You cannot deny that Christ has also been made manifest to you. The question before you is will you accept Him?

As I said earlier; If you draw close to God, God will draw close to you. If you choose not to come to God, He will not force you to Himself. God treats everyone fairly and it will be unfair for Him to force you into righteousness.

I can turn your question around and ask you: What makes you so special? Why should God force the revelation of Himself upon you if you are not interested in the first place?

2 peter 3:9 should answer that.

musKeeto:

2 peter 3:9 should answer that.

I sincerely hope that verse comes true for you and I pray that you come to repentance and that the time never comes when you would have wandered so far away that you become lost.

Hebrews 3:15

Mr_Anony:
I sincerely hope that verse comes true for you and I pray that you come to repentance and that the time never comes when you would have wandered so far away that you become lost.

Hebrews 3:15

Not all that wander are lost - ps aio..

I'm quite sure there are some paths I won't take anymore.

musKeeto:
Not all that wander are lost - ps aio..

I'm quite sure there are some paths I won't take anymore.

ok