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

to which I reply: (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.

Quit your silly nonsense, talking about childish, hypocrite. Here you doing the best you can to not own up to your folly. I don't know what's going on here? Ha ha, oh wow.

Again, it was conspicuous to anyone with a functioning brain what was meant by 'incomprehensible', even you seem to have gotten it from the way you posted. He states it very clearly early on. So, what was wrong with admitting he was right? It would make xtian doctrine look silly? It would make you look silly? Dog is watching and he might send you to hell? What?

You were NOT in disagreement with his assertion despite all your story. So, unambiguously, he was right, yes?

God cannot be incomprehensible, are we clear on that?


And knowing part of god != knowing god. This looks like another silly play on words to me. There's the possibility knowing parts of a concept and yet the system as a whole would be incomprehensible. I'm no mathematician, but I think that's one of consequences of godel's incompleteness theorm, yes? I'll grant that I'll have to think on it and this could be wrong.

And if this is wrong, and it could be as knowing part of the system implies the part is built around logic, thus the whole which produced it should be built around logic as well (except in anonyland), it reinforces kay's assertion brilliantly; god cannot be incomprehensible.

Meh

wiegraf:

Quit your silly nonsense, talking about childish, hypocrite. Here you doing the best you can to not own up to your folly. I don't know what's going on here? Ha ha, oh wow.

Again, it was conspicuous to anyone with a functioning brain what was meant by 'incomprehensible', even you seem to have gotten it from the way you posted. He states it very clearly early on. So, what was wrong with admitting he was right? It would make xtian doctrine look silly? It would make you look silly? Dog is watching and he might send you to hell? What?

You were NOT in disagreement with his assertion despite all your story. So, unambiguously, he was right, yes?

God cannot be incomprehensible, are we clear on that?


And knowing part of god != knowing god. This looks like another silly play on words to me. There's the possibility knowing parts of a concept and yet the system as a whole would be incomprehensible. I'm no mathematician, but I think that's one of consequences of godel's incompleteness theorm, yes? I'll grant that I'll have to think on it and this could be wrong.

And if this is wrong, and it could be as knowing part of the system implies the part is built around logic, thus the whole which produced it should be built around logic as well (except in anonyland), it reinforces kay's assertion brilliantly; god cannot be incomprehensible.

Meh

SMH

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.

What exactly has your god revealed to you since you claim you atre close to him. . .All the christians that disagree with each other over everything also get their revelations from god, no?. . .Is it not the same god that is revealing himself to oladegbuu that is also revealing himself to davidylan. . .Whey then do they disagree most of the time. . .Frosbel, goshen toba etc. . .Why is your god revealing different things to different people that have come close to him?

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.

How subjective, yet God the is objective moral law giver.



You are an irrational and dubious apologist. Case closed

Mr anony, I think you are being dubious, because I at almost every post defined and stated clearly the word "incomprehensible". Muskeeto and wiegraf followed by thoughts, and everyone on the thread seem to follow that direction and suddenly you thought the word meant some else entirely!

At a point you admitted to muskeeto and I that God was not incomprehensible! That i was mistaken in that belief.

However to move forward, and by accepting my definition of the word, is God incomprehensible?

Kay 17: Mr anony, I think you are being dubious, because I at almost every post defined and stated clearly the word "incomprehensible". Muskeeto and wiegraf followed by thoughts, and everyone on the thread seem to follow that direction and suddenly you thought the word meant some else entirely!

At a point you admitted to muskeeto and I that God was not incomprehensible! That i was mistaken in that belief.

However to move forward, and by accepting my definition of the word, is God incomprehensible?

Why are you doing this? I never said God is impossible to know, I also made it quite clear from the beginning and at almost every post that we know God in parts and we shall know Him in full on the last day. I think you are being dishonest.

Anyway, since "incomprehensible" has become a problem word for us, Why don't you ask me straight. "Is God impossible to know?"

mazaje:

What exactly has your god revealed to you since you claim you atre close to him. . .All the christians that disagree with each other over everything also get their revelations from god, no?. . .Is it not the same god that is revealing himself to oladegbuu that is also revealing himself to davidylan. . .Whey then do they disagree most of the time. . .Frosbel, goshen toba etc. . .Why is your god revealing different things to different people that have come close to him?

First of all could you define who a christian is? So that we can be sure that you know what a christian is before you start talking of what they do or how they disagree.

Mr_Anony:
SMH

Heh heh

On a serious note you'll do whatever you can to not admit clearly that he was correct from the get go?

You practice your moves on vidya games like 'dance dance revolution', or maybe a wii?

Lemme go find someone more worthy of a beat down

wiegraf:

Heh heh

On a serious note you'll do whatever you can to not admit clearly that he was correct from the get go?

You practice your moves on vidya games like 'dance dance revolution', or maybe a wii?

Lemme go find someone more worthy of a beat down

Yawn

Ok, mr anony, I get your point.

On my next contention with God, his supernatural nature.

Kay 17: Ok, mr anony, I get your point.

On my next contention with God, his supernatural nature.

Ok, what's your contention?

Why God doesn't exist.

Kay 17: Why God doesn't exist.

Lol, see jamb question! Why doesn't Kay 17 exist?

wiegraf:

Quit your silly nonsense, talking about childish, hypocrite. Here you doing the best you can to not own up to your folly. I don't know what's going on here? Ha ha, oh wow.

Again, it was conspicuous to anyone with a functioning brain what was meant by 'incomprehensible',
Meh

well to be quite honest, I also understood 'incomprehensible' to mean difficult to understand completely.

honeychild:
well to be quite honest, I also understood 'incomprehensible' to mean difficult to understand completely.

Kay was very clear and stated several times; not comprehensible ever. Anony understood this definition and even agreed with. For some reason later on he pretended not to get it. Probably
to save face

wiegraf:

Kay was very clear and stated several times; not comprehensible ever. Anony understood this definition and even agreed with. For some reason later on he pretended not to get it. Probably
to save face

This is what annoys me the most. His fellow supprters will see this and still claim that Anony is making sense.

Anony is very dubious just like Dinesh D'souza. He saw that if he continued with the definition, all his points would have been decimate. He started remixing and remixing then lied that we didnt understand his argument.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, see jamb question! Why doesn't Kay 17 exist?

I meant my contention was God doesn't exist.

Mr_Anony:
First of all could you define who a christian is? So that we can be sure that you know what a christian is before you start talking of what they do or how they disagree.

What has the defination of a christian got to do with the fact that christians that claim to be close to god argue all the time?. . .Are people like frosbel, davidylan, goshen, oladegbuu etc that constantly claim they are close to god but disagree and argue with each other not christians?. . .Is oladegbuu not a christian?. . .Why is he always arguing with davidylan while both of them are claiming to be recieving their own knowledge from god. . .Why is god sending them different interpertations of the bible? What about frosbel and Goshen, pastor kun and joabaje etc. . .All claiming to be close to god but arguing and disagreeing with each other most of the time. . .

Kay 17:

I meant my contention was God doesn't exist.

How so? I am still not seeing the link between supernatural and non-existence.

Mr_Anony:
How so? I am still not seeing the link between supernatural and non-existence.

The attribute of Supernatural is the idea that God despite his character, can act beyond it. Which is irrational.

Kay 17:

The attribute of Supernatural is the idea that God despite his character, can act beyond it. Which is irrational.

I wonder where you got that from. In what dictionary does supernatural mean that someone can act beyond his character?

^^ I drew that from human "experience" of the supernatural. By what we understand by supernatural, that is contradiction of Nature. For example apple trees producing blood.

Mr_Anony:
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.

that place was talking about "when that which is complete arrives"

so God is that which is complete?

It is funny that some people will want to accept that God can either forget or make mistake that we will be completing his work for him.

Now, which "knowledge" are you using to complete that verse to mean "seeing God" since the old manuscript did not do that? is it still the incomplete knowledge that you have befor "seeing" God?

Since according to you we need to see God befor coming to "knowledge" dont you think that should make you and your co translators to exercise a little restrained?

But no. You will rather use your incomplete knowledge to add and deduce scriptures all over the place.

Since we "cannot know God" now according to you.

Why then should any body be bordered about God at the first place?

Why should God even say he will kill those that are not interested in knowing him since it is an impossible act?

Why even border to preach to people that are not Jews or preach to atheist here on NL?

On what basis will people be Judge on since knowing him is impossible until we see him?

Dont you think we are the most confused people?

Men, you are on your own.

there is a difference between philosophy and christianity.

truthislight: there is a difference between philosophy and christianity.

Of course but why do you say so?

Logicboy03:


Of course but why do you say so?

Anony don fall their hand.. Like a cancerous limb, its time to cut him off..

The story of Xtianity.. Lol

musKeeto:
Anony don fall their hand.. Like a cancerous limb, its time to cut him off..

The story of Xtianity.. Lol

The atheists here destroyed Anony on the logical arguments

Truthislight finished him from the scriptural side.



He thought that people will turn a blind eye to his Anonyism

Logicboy03:


Of course but why do you say so?

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:.

Kay 17: ^^ I drew that from human "experience" of the supernatural. By what we understand by supernatural, that is contradiction of Nature. For example apple trees producing blood.

Supernatural is not something that contradicts nature rather it is something that transcends nature i.e. You cannot explain the supernatural using Natural laws.

When I say God is supernatural, what I mean is that He is not subject to natural laws rather He transcends them. God is Spirit.

The nature of God is such that you cannot define God in terms of space, time and matter. That is what is meant by God is Supernatural.

Does this clarify things for you?

Mr_Anony:
Supernatural is not something that contradicts nature rather it is something that transcends nature i.e. You cannot explain the supernatural using Natural laws.

When I say God is supernatural, what I mean is that He is not subject to natural laws rather He transcends them. God is Spirit.

The nature of God is such that you cannot define God in terms of space, time and matter. That is what is meant by God is Supernatural.

Does this clarify things for you?

Another meaningless talk apologist use to confused themselves and delude others into believing their myths and nonsense talk. . .

Firstly, the bible describes its god as the beginning and the end, that denotes time. . .It says god created man in his own image, and that god lives in a place called heaven. . .Actually the bible even claimed that people once tried to build a tower up high so that they could reach where god was in his abode before he got scared and confused their tongue which resulted to people speaking different languages. . .That denotes matter and space since people could reach his abode. . .There is no where in the bible where it says that god lives outside of time and space. . .

truthislight:

that place was talking about "when that which is complete arrives"

so God is that which is complete?

Is God incomplete?

It is funny that some people will want to accept that God can either forget or make mistake that we will be completing his work for him.

Now, which "knowledge" are you using to complete that verse to mean "seeing God" since the old manuscript did not do that? is it still the incomplete knowledge that you have befor "seeing" God?

perhaps at this point I should ask you to tell me of this "old manuscript" of yours because I have provided you with a number of translations that say the same thing but you rejected them all.

Since according to you we need to see God befor coming to "knowledge" dont you think that should make you and your co translators to exercise a little restrained?

But no. You will rather use your incomplete knowledge to add and deduce scriptures all over the place.

It is clear to me now that you don't understand figures of speech. That verse tells us that our knowledge of God is like blurred vision (Incomplete). It uses "seeing as a metaphor for knowledge". Why would Paul suddenly start talking about looking in mirrors from nowhere?

Since we "cannot know God" now according to you.

This is a misrepresentation of what I said. The rest of your argument following from it is a strawman. Go and read what I actually said.

Mr_Anony:
Supernatural is not something that contradicts nature rather it is something that transcends nature i.e. You cannot explain the supernatural using Natural laws.

When I say God is supernatural, what I mean is that He is not subject to natural laws rather He transcends them. God is Spirit.

The nature of God is such that you cannot define God in terms of space, time and matter. That is what is meant by God is Supernatural.

Does this clarify things for you?

Expressed as a contravention of Nature