I don’t think this is true. No matter his IQ Einstein essentially had all the same tools available to him that every other person has. The theory of relativity, and similarly any theory, could have been proposed by anyone who pondered on the relevant questions for long enough. Both Einstein and I are finite beings so it is quite within reason that we can understand each other. The difference with God is that He is infinite, and we are not.
I don’t think this is a good reply to my counterexamples. To show that I will provide an explanation of my argument and show how you attempt to object them. First I will explain my argument. Second I will explain your critiques. Finally, I will explain why they fail.
This is how my argument works. In my argument I used the notion of being more perfect than. Surely, even if it were impossible for someone like me to develop Einstein theory it doesn’t follow that it would be impossible for me to understand it, just because I’m less intelligent than him (because I have a lesser degree of intelligence). For the same reason it doesn’t follow that lesser perfect beings can’t understand more perfect beings. That’s the whole point of my argument. Perhaps you are right and a person that is not a genius, but is intelligent, and works hard for too many years could develop such a theory. Plausibly that is no universally true, because there are people (normal people) that lack some abilities to develop such theory, and so, they lack some “tools” for such an enterprise. But even if it true that everyone can develop Einstein theory, my argument is not proved wrong, because it is not proved that it impossible for a less perfect being to understand a most perfect being than him.
In more precise terms I’ve proceed as follow: with the notion of being more perfect than I made sense of the next principle in order to evaluate it:
- For every x and y, if x is more perfect than y then y cannot understand x
That principle is just false for the reasons exposed (there are clear counterexamples to it). If we change a bit (1) we can make sense of the next principle, that is less strong:
- For every x and y, if x is more rational than y then y cannot understand x’s ideas
I’ve been arguing also that, despite it is less strong, (2) is also false (there are clear counterexamples to it too).
Your response to such arguments of mine seems to be based on the next kind of argument: God is infinite. No finite being can understand infinite beings. Humans are finite beings. Therefore: no human can understand God.
The rejection of those examples, as insufficient for proving my point, is based on the conclusion of the argument just stated. If God is infinite and we are finite, and no finite beings can understand infinite beings, God should satisfy both (1) and (2). At least, so it seems.
As I said before I think your critiques failed. First, I don’t understand the way in which you’re using ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ here. Before having a rational discussion we must clarify when needed the notions we’re going to use. If you’re using ‘infinite’ as synonymous with ‘being perfect in the higher possible degree’ and ‘finite’ as synonymous with ‘being perfect in a degree minor to the higher possible’ then can discuss because we are taking of the same things, I’m saying that some principle is false and that the case of God is no exception, and you’re saying that that very principle is true of God. But if that’s the notion you are employing (the same as mine) then you must justify why the must perfect possible being (God) cannot be understood by lesser perfect beings (we, humans). If the reason for such conclusions is either (1) or (2) then you’re begging the question. If you have other reasons then you should provide them.
Finally, if you’re using ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ in another sense you should explain that sense, and explain why if God is infinite in that sense we, human beings, cannot understand him because our finite being
No, it would not be evidence against His existence. It can’t be evidence for and against His existence at the same time. That’s not logical. If He doesn’t exist, then He can’t have said that He would never prove that He exists, and therefore that statement is not admissible as part of a proof that He doesn’t exist.
At best, the existence of Babelfish simply isn’t evidence for His existence or non-existence, though it could be evidence for His existence because even if He exists those words weren’t necessarily words that he actually said.