Continuing Clarifications and Objections
The Athenean Stranger Says: I like your preliminary response, I found it quite amusing actually. Correct me if I'm wrong but basically what you're saying is that the phrase "CANNOT COMPREHEND" actually means you CAN comprehend, but just a little bit. I thought that was funny but I can see your point and I would like to expand on it a little further with an example.
Lets say you (or I) were at a rocket science convention and attended a seminar on how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics. We may "NOT COMPREHEND" or grasp the concepts being presented, BUT atleast we would have some inkling that the subject relates to our physical world. My reference to this train of thought is from your comment "It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge)." I don't know if it was the best example but again, correct me if I'm off the wrong track.
Back to my definition, I think this is a matter of context. Now to explain my point, another example: Consider a man who is blind, deaf and dumb. The man is sitting in an empty room in the Philippines, unaware that there is a camera focused on him. You are in Mississauga, sitting in your home office watching this man from your PC. From your position you simply try to explain 1 + 1 = 2 to this man. In the very slightest, can this man comprehend you? Could he understand you? ... Of course he cannot. Why? This man has no knowledge of you. He is handicapped with 3 of his senses and undable to use the other 2 due to circumstance. He is completely oblivious to you. It is in this context that I say he (we) "CANNOT COMPREHEND". Actually I think in this context any word would do: KNOW, GRASP, UNDERSTAND, APPREHEND, etc. Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance. So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.
I know I was supposed to wait till you finished your response but I had some time today to I was able to say a little something. I'll wait for your next response
Lets say you (or I) were at a rocket science convention and attended a seminar on how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics. We may "NOT COMPREHEND" or grasp the concepts being presented, BUT atleast we would have some inkling that the subject relates to our physical world. My reference to this train of thought is from your comment "It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge)." I don't know if it was the best example but again, correct me if I'm off the wrong track.
Back to my definition, I think this is a matter of context. Now to explain my point, another example: Consider a man who is blind, deaf and dumb. The man is sitting in an empty room in the Philippines, unaware that there is a camera focused on him. You are in Mississauga, sitting in your home office watching this man from your PC. From your position you simply try to explain 1 + 1 = 2 to this man. In the very slightest, can this man comprehend you? Could he understand you? ... Of course he cannot. Why? This man has no knowledge of you. He is handicapped with 3 of his senses and undable to use the other 2 due to circumstance. He is completely oblivious to you. It is in this context that I say he (we) "CANNOT COMPREHEND". Actually I think in this context any word would do: KNOW, GRASP, UNDERSTAND, APPREHEND, etc. Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance. So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.
I know I was supposed to wait till you finished your response but I had some time today to I was able to say a little something. I'll wait for your next response
The Vendéen Response: You need to make a distinction between NOT COMPREHENDING and NOT UNDERSTANDING.
I like your preliminary response, I found it quite amusing actually. Correct me if I'm wrong but basically what you're saying is that the phrase "CANNOT COMPREHEND" actually means you CAN comprehend, but just a little bit. I thought that was funny but I can see your point and I would like to expand on it a little further with an example.
Nowhere did I say Cannot Comprehend means, I can comprehend, but just a little. That would be a contradictory sentence. In my last clarification, I made A DISTINCTION between CANNOT COMPREHEND and CANNOT UNDERSTAND in opposition to your placement of those two expressions as equal. I am using LOGIC here and not loose terminology. In repeating here my last clarification: “To not understand and to not comprehend is not the same thing”. CANNOT COMPREHEND does not signify in the proper sense the absence of some understanding (knowledge), but rather it signifies “the inability to grasp or possess in totality or fullness a thing”. Therefore, to say that WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND GOD on account of His Incomprehensibility is illogical. To rephrase what you wrote above in understanding what I am saying, it should rather say CANNOT COMPREHEHND means you can understand some things and not all or FULLY. Simply put you Cannot Comprehend implies a limit and not a negation.
Lets say you (or I) were at a rocket science convention and attended a seminar on how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics. We may "NOT COMPREHEND" or grasp the concepts being presented, BUT atleastto ou we would have some inkling that the subject relates r physical world. My reference to this train of thought is from your comment "It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge)." I don't know if it was the best example but again, correct me if I'm off the wrong track.
Somewhat, but to be more precise let me modify your analogy above. We may not comprehend (fully) the concepts being presented but we are able to grasp SOME things. We are not completely oblivious to what is being spoken off. In the things spoken of we understand what the concept of physics is (study of matter in motion through space and time in general), what mathematics is in a general level (e.g. numbers, some equations), what technology is in general etc.., but in terms of making sense of it all in the full sense on the subject of “how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics”, we understand it in a confused and limited way. But despite that, there exists SOME UNDERSTANDING (knowledge of some particulars).
Back to my definition, I think this is a matter of context. Now to explain my point, another example: Consider a man who is blind, deaf and dumb. The man is sitting in an empty room in the Philippines, unaware that there is a camera focused on him. You are in Mississauga, sitting in your home office watching this man from your PC. From your position you simply try to explain 1 + 1 = 2 to this man. In the very slightest, can this man comprehend you? Could he understand you? ... Of course he cannot. Why? This man has no knowledge of you. He is handicapped with 3 of his senses and unable to use the other 2 due to circumstance. He is completely oblivious to you. It is in this context that I say he (we) "CANNOT COMPREHEND". Actually I think in this context any word would do: KNOW, GRASP, UNDERSTAND, APPREHEND, etc. Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance. So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.
I understand completely your point as well as your analogy above. But I see some weakness and inadequacy in your analogy defending your theory. The analogy demonstrates the weakness of the propostion WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND GOD. Here below are some objections to consider in regards to your analogy expressed above. First let us subsititute the anonymous character John Doe in replacement of myself in the analogy you provided above.
Objection 1:
NOT ALL MEN are blind, deaf and dumb. In fact this is ABNORMAL (handicapped individuals). This particular man is handicapped from the ability to understand normally, but the majority of MEN like me and you can have knowledge of John Doe using the scenario you gave above. The case above is rare and is considered a particular instance. This is a fallacy of relative to absolute which argues from a particular instance and applying it to all circumstances without restriction. In this context the ORDINARY MAN by his ability to reason from particulars to universals, with the ability to interact and abstract his surrounding environment, has the capacity to understand or come to the knowledge of GOD. We come to the knowledge of things by studying their effects and tracing them to their cause. God who is the first cause and principal origin of movement can be known by studying His EFFECTS (creation). Although in the natural field, apart from divine revelation this knowledge is not complete (full), it nonetheless attains true knowledge of particulars. Even if we argue from negation, when we explain what God is not, we nonetheless arrive at a particular knowledge (understanding) of God which eliminates the proposition that God cannot be understood in the universal sense. For instance when we say God is not finite, we nonetheless demonstrate a particular understanding of God. Now is this what God is (not finite) in the full sense? No, because it is not ALL of what God is and it is not a definition of what God is, but nonetheless it is a particular knowledge (understanding) of God. Therefore, as demonstrated, there exists SOME UNDERSTANDING (knowledge) of God as opposed to NOT UNDERSTANDING God universally.
Objection 2:
Why does John Doe have to be in Mississauga. He can bring himself to where the handicapped man is personally. In person I can communicate to him by his sense of touch, thereby excluding the reality of being completely oblivious. In fact in Theology this personal manifestation of John Doe is a particular analogy for the reasonability of Divine Revelation which adds and goes beyond the natural capacity of Man to understand (come to the knowledge of ) God, since by it God appears in person and communicates in a human way.
Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance. So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.
My use of the term “beyond limits” refers to quantity and not a negation. It only means the inability to reach or grasp fully a thing. God is transcending because we can only grasp Him at some level (some quantity) and NOT FULLY on account of his infinite nature. Although we cannot reach a full grasp of God we nonetheless are able to reach him at some levels. Therefore to say that we CANNOT (no quantity) UNDERSTAND God on account of his transcendence is a false conclusion. I am not contesting that God cannot be comprehended which is true on account of his infinite nature, I am only contesting here the erroneous idea or misinterpretation that this meant NO UNDERSTANDING of God, for NOT COMPREHENDING is not a negation but only a restriction or limit. That is why I made note of the distinction between CANNOT COMPREHEND and CANNOT UNDERSTAND.
I know I was supposed to wait till you finished your response but I had some time today to I was able to say a little something. I'll wait for your next response.
That’s no problem. I am sorry that I am keeping you waiting like this. I have been finding it hard to take time to respond. But I really do want to engage in this interesting dialogue. In the next few weeks my responses will be more frequent and shorter in wait time since my new portfolio is now online. I just need to do some tweaking to make it better. However we should really get together for some grilled green mussels...lol. I would ask for your patience one more time however. I still need to respond to your older objections. I am imposing on myself a deadline this week for this. Sunday the latest. Do not respond yet until I have finished answering your older objections. If you respond now I will not be able to get to your older objections : (
Posts
