I have never seen a written proof of God beyond ontological arguments. If something is described as being beyond duality, senses, and relativistic logic, why would someone expect to prove that with logic, dualism, and relativistic logic? There is no point to concede.
i think i understand your point......Gordon makes a hypothetical and you conclude this proves your arguments and beliefs...ok....good point how about this to prove the existence of god, a person dies but then sees a light and the hand of God and comes back to life after being pronounced dead by doctors??
You admit that faith is a method of discovery and knowledge. If God did exist, and were beyond your intellect and senses, what method would you use to come to know God?
no i admit nothing of the sort. the import of what i'm saying is faith is NO method to discovery or knowledge. the answer to your ques is if that is true then god is BEYOND knowing. He is unknowable. You cannot know him. And i can live with that because if he does exist under those conditions then he is deliberately unknowable or he has no choice, in either case i cannot be to blame for "unkowing", nor should i have been expected to know, nor should i have known being a man of reason. :-/
I admit the God cannot be known with a limited intellect nor the lmited senses. That is not the same as saying God is unknowable.
those are empty words. define "unlimited intellect". what is its nature? what does it look like? truth is "unlimited intellect" has no meaning. :-/
Spoken like a man with a limited intellect. Unlimited intellect would have no meaning for one with a limited intellect, quite true. God's nature is the exact opposite of this limited world, He looks like the opposite of all that you could possibly see with limited vision.
ok, define "limited intellect"? don't rearrange the words but give a true definition to include its nature. :-/