(June 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(June 2, 2016 at 3:25 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable...what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?
Have you ever heard of the difference between positive theology and negative theology? There is a distinction between existence (that something is) and essence (what something is). People can know that God is, from various logical demonstrations, without have a full understanding of what God is. Such is the case for many things. Since the dawn of time, people knew that the sun existed without knowing that it was essentially a nuclear explosion contained by gravity. That's the positive theology side. Negative theology starts with the premise that God's essence is incomprehensible, but that it is at least possible to know what God is not such as not limited, not changing, not a composite, etc.
^This. Just because we don't understand everything about God, or even have the mental capacity to comprehend everything about His nature, doesn't mean it therefore makes no sense to believe in Him at all, or that we can't understand some things.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh