How do we know about someone we have never seen? How do we know if it is His illuminated thoughts or simply the thoughts in our heads? How do we know whether the thoughts in our heads are solely coming from something we have absorbed in the past? I genuinely do not believe we can have an idea about something without a objective description of that thing in appropriate words. This is my key point that anything we manage in describing a thing or a personality comes from a standard vocabulary that were created. We can say a communication is outside of our box of the communication that people use but if it is uncommunicated to us as we contemplate it in our vocabulary then it is the same thing as saying there is no basis for it to be true. The void or unexplainable communication represents nothing.

 God had an idea before it was articulated into objective reality. If we say that God is totally unexplainable then, we would have no concept of God as we properly speak. To be able to say "God means this" we are accurately distinguishing between no god and God. If God did not exist then, we wouldn't consider God in our standard vocabulary. My essential point is that instead of saying that when we precisely describe what God says about Himself in the logical vocabulary. He has intentionally given us to accurately describe Him that this "cannot be" because God did not revealed Himself in our vocabulary. We should be saying God reasonably gave us a vocabulary to adequately explain Him enough so that it sufficiently proves the straightforward logic of how we properly use this vocabulary that He issued to us. Why would we limit the adequate ideas in distinguishing God because we merely accept this narrow box of ideas? We put a box around God when we say the description that we have about God must be untrue. God cannot be recognized in arguing against the possible ideas that we intentionally introduce that people do not agree with.

 Everything that exist must sufficiently demonstrate a sufficient reason. We describe every empirical evidence of a created thing with operative words that accurately convey a descriptive personality to it. Instead of using the critical argument that we cannot mutually understand the thing God has created. We do not have a right to describe that thing because our official description is always limited by your unanswerable argument that it is a mystery. Consequently, you reject an acceptable description then you are merely denying the specific purpose for which we accurately distinguish who we are in appropriate comparison to other created objects. Why not say Hey I never thought of that the meaningful way you fittingly describe it as you see Gods gifted language that you have universally adopted to describe it? Why do you ignore the description and place it in the category of mystery because you are extremely dull(not with malice) to examine it with your own ideas? Its wrong to limit ideas by crying mystery. AR