'Comprehending to some degree' is not comprehending..it is comprehending to some degree.
Originally Posted by pappillion001
This is your problem..you are trying to say that understanding roughly what a word implies is comprehending....which is incorrect.
Understanding that googleplex is a huge number is not comprehending it .
When you supply evidence that you can comprehend infinite, which by its own definition is incomprehencible then I will let you off. The rest is just you blowing off.
You have no idea of the power of a being that is capable of creating the universe.So your arbitary limitations on his power cannot be taken seriously.
If you state that you can comprehend infinite or inded a googolplex and cannot provide any evidence of it then I will take it that you cannot and you lose the argument.
I can state I am the King of Spain but without proof I should not expect to be believed..it is not up to others to prove I am not the king of Spain.
You are flapping in the wind.You cannot even prove your first assertion and laughingly are trying to get me to disprove it..the rest is just prattle.
You got nothing and you know it.
This is easy
Last edited by gansao; 08-19-2011 at 05:51 AM.
Richard Dawkins quote..
.'I dont think its a very important question whether Jesus existed. Some historians.. MOST historians think he did.
I dont really care, precisely because its petty. Maybe I've alluded to the possibilty that some historians think Jesus never existed. I take that back Jesus existed........