re: #59 EiMitch

No, what actually happened is that I objected to the dogmatic statement made about God (any God; all versions of him, whether more or less popular). Then came you with a bee in your bonnet and started redefining things, moving the goalposts and erecting strawmen, thus showing that you’re not arguing in good faith. Yet at the end you have failed to show that the statement “God is unknowable” is anything but a faith statement. For it to be true, any God (big G) has to be unknowable (not simply the most popular version, which is knowable anyway and is not equal to a “general concept of God” you insist on now that your funnily absurd claim has been shown to be false). And yes, any particular knowable God is sufficient to debunk that absolutist statement. Learn how logic works.