Originally Posted by pappillion001

I didn't ask you to justify or explain my question I asked you to provide an answer with regards to you specifically. How do you know that what the symbols mean? I agree oweifhowiehfo might mean something to someone somewhere but even though I can write it it means nothing to me, but this is not true in our example. You knew what it meant in order for you to know you would have to comprehend to some degree the concept of what those letters represent.





Nope doesn't sit and doesn't go on the net. Try again



Nor does it mean they don't, but since you don't you can not make a judgement about if others can. How would you know if they don't? You don't know what the right answer is.



Prove it. In order to do so you need to show that any claimed understanding is incorrect.







One of the core beliefs of Judaism and Christianity is that God is omnipotent, able to do anything that is logically possible. But surprisingly, the Bible does not consistently support this idea. I've already written about the Tower of Babel, in which the Old Testament God appears to worry that humans will overmatch him if they complete the tower. And then, there's the following little-known Bible verse:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
—Judges 1:19
Although obscure among believers, this verse is famous among critics of scripture; it has even spawned a counter-apologetics wiki, fittingly titled Iron Chariots (and then there's this amusing modern retelling).
Why God should have a problem overcoming iron chariots is not clear. In the context of the Bible it is utterly bizarre, almost as if it was inserted from a completely different religious tradition - it brings to mind the Celtic folklore about how cold iron was an effective repellent for faeries, ghosts, witches and other supernatural creatures.
On the other hand, it may just be that this verse was written when Yahweh was regarded as a local deity, supernaturally powerful but not invincible. In this respect, the biblical authors might have conceived of him as similar to the ancient Greek gods, who according to the Iliad could be wounded by humans. Iron chariots, in the world of the the Ancient Near East, were the most technologically advanced weapon of war in existence. They seem to have played a decisive role in conflicts like the Battle of Qarqar in 850 BCE, when an alliance of smaller kingdoms (including King Ahab of Israel, whom the Bible's authors reviled) fended off an invasion by the regional superpower of Assyria.
It's possible that the Bible's original authors imagined God as not powerful enough to overcome this technology, and that the dogma of his total omnipotence was a later innovation. (By Judges chapter 4, God seems to have acquired the ability to defeat chariots.) If so, this verse might be a fossil of that earlier belief, preserved in the text like a prehistoric insect in amber. As a part of modern Judeo-Christian theology it's like a puzzle piece that doesn't fit, but if we take a more rational view of the Bible as a collection of human-written and human-compiled documents, verses like this may provide valuable clues about its origin and evolution.
Of course, the usual apologists have swooped in to try to explain away this verse within the framework of their own assumptions. The standard explanation for this verse is that the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites' iron chariots because they were not obedient to God's desires. However, the text itself does not support this guess: it mentions no such sin, and indeed, it says "the Lord was with Judah", which one would not expect if Judah had been sinful or disobedient. Instead, it specifically identifies the presence of the iron chariots as the reason why the driving out of the Canaanites failed.




And by the 3rd he has proven himself to be dishonest, spiteful and the cause of evil in the world.

I like that you have answered with a maybe well how about maybe not.








No you repeated a 2,000 year old story written by unknown persons for unknown reasons that has no historical support for ever having actually happened and to which I offered reasonable explainations.




If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumps.



but yet you can't comprehend infinte. Maybe that is why you think he did, because you can't comprehend anything beyond a man 5000 years ago.




If you can't you have no ability to say I can't



Can you prove he is greater than the universe? Why must it be one or the other?



I have refuted it as best as can be expected for an argument based on because you said so and you can't so nobody can



Your arguing about whether an entity that is unproven to exist is omnipotent based on stories retold countless times before being written down by nobody knows who and whose credibility is unsupported. The Argonautica should be true also then.



Christians across the world cringe. That is the main premise? Maybe give a once over sometime it may help.

I can't lose your not even playing the same game. Your breaking your mental gears playing checkers to my chess.

'Comprehending to some degree' is not comprehending..it is comprehending to some degree.
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