OK you're throwing in the towel Knight. It does seem you have no argument, and you admit to saying the same thing over and over.
Your argument:
See the vast majority of us here don't agree with that. We all think you can't know. And if you can't know either, how can you be so bold as to make this claim? I would suggest that logically, you cannot. Your position is untenable.
It has been said many times already, but that doesn't mean that what has been said is illogical. I've answered those points. If you're going to deny logic so completely then what's the point of discussing. You can put your head in a bucket and sing la la la all you like... that doesn't make you right.
One last time: I've already shown that you cannot say infinite things about God. Once you start to define him, you realise what can't apply, and what can apply is listed quite thoroughly by theologians. How can they do this if it isn't possible?
I haven't defined anything. All I've shown is a methodology (amongst many others): Via Negativa.
What you're doing here is choosing to ignore a certain train of thought. That's fine, but don't insist that everyone else willingly adopt your blindness. Intellectual honesty is paramount.
The "observable" here doesn't include the physically observable but intellectual observance of logical thought. You require God to be a physical entity when God isn't a physical entity. Yes you're going to fail with that.
Your argument:
Knight Wrote:Besides this "God" name one thing which you define by what it is not.
Knight Wrote:these attributes cannot be applied to any known beingA claim to special pleading... but then you change this:
Knight Wrote:It's not the fact that it's unique that I have a problem with. It is the fact that this unique property is not observable.Nothing exists that isn't observable? Are you gnostic about this? You are categorically saying that God cannot exist?
See the vast majority of us here don't agree with that. We all think you can't know. And if you can't know either, how can you be so bold as to make this claim? I would suggest that logically, you cannot. Your position is untenable.
Knight Wrote:You have certainly limited God (a little), but as it has been said many times already, you can say an infinite amount of things that God is not and we will never get any closer to what God actually is because there are infinite more attributes you could give it
It has been said many times already, but that doesn't mean that what has been said is illogical. I've answered those points. If you're going to deny logic so completely then what's the point of discussing. You can put your head in a bucket and sing la la la all you like... that doesn't make you right.
One last time: I've already shown that you cannot say infinite things about God. Once you start to define him, you realise what can't apply, and what can apply is listed quite thoroughly by theologians. How can they do this if it isn't possible?
I haven't defined anything. All I've shown is a methodology (amongst many others): Via Negativa.
What you're doing here is choosing to ignore a certain train of thought. That's fine, but don't insist that everyone else willingly adopt your blindness. Intellectual honesty is paramount.
The "observable" here doesn't include the physically observable but intellectual observance of logical thought. You require God to be a physical entity when God isn't a physical entity. Yes you're going to fail with that.
