How do we identify someone we've ne'er witnessed? How do we know He's speaking to the voice in our heads or us? How do we know the voice is simply coming from commodity we've acquired in the history? I really don't believe we can have an idea without a description in words. This is my crucial point we directly describe a thing or distinct personality comes from a suggestive vocabulary that was created. We say a vocabulary is outside of our box that everyone produces. If isn't communicated as we hear in our vocabulary is the same as saying there's no factual base for it to be true. The unexplained communication represents nothing. God had an idea before it was established in objective reality. However, we will have no conception of God as we duly speak, If we say God is completely unexplained. To be suitable to say God" means" are precisely distinguishing between no god and God. However, we'd not accept God in our vocabulary, If God didn't exist. My point is rather of saying when we describe what God says about Himself in the logical vocabulary, this can not be because God has not revealed Himself in our vocabulary. We should be duly saying God gave us vocabulary to adequately explain Him enough so it sufficiently proves the sense we use, this vocabulary He gave us. Why would we limit the ideas in distinguishing God because we simply accept this narrow box of ideas? We place a box around God when we note the description we've about God mustn't be true because God can not be restrained in arguing against the ideas we introduce that you don't agree with. Everything that live must duly maintain a sufficient reason. We directly describe empirical substantiation of a created thing with words in descriptive personality. Rather of using the argument we can not duly understand the thing God created we don't admit a right to directly describe that possible thing because our description is always limited by your fruitless argument it's a riddle. Hence you reject an respectable description, latterly denying the purpose for which we distinguish who we're in comparison to other created objects. Why not simply say, "Hey I no way conceived of that the way you describe it as you see Gods blessed language you have used to describe it? Why do you ignore the accurate description and position it in the arbitrary order of mystery because you're extremely dull (not with malignancy) to precisely examine it with your own ideas? It's unhappy to limit ideas by crying mystery.