How do we know about someone we have no way seen? How do we know if it's His illuminated studies or simply the studies in our heads? How do we know whether the studies in our heads are solely coming from commodity we have absorbed in the history? I genuinely do not believe we can have an idea about commodity without an objective description of that thing in applicable words. This is my pivotal 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 not communicated to us as we contemplate in our vocabulary also it's the same thing as saying there is no base for it to be true. The void or inexplicable communication represents nothing. God had an idea before it was articulated into objective reality. However, we would have no generality of God as we properly speak, If we say that God is fully unexplainable also. To be suitable to say"God means this"we are directly distinguishing between no god and God. Still, we wouldn't consider God in our standard vocabulary, If God did not live also. My essential point is that rather of saying that when we precisely describe what God says about Himself in the logical vocabulary. He has deliberately communicated to directly describe Him that this"can not be"because God did not reveal Himself in our vocabulary. We should be saying God nicely gave us a vocabulary to adequately explain Him enough so that it sufficiently proves the straightforward sense we properly use this vocabulary that He issued to us. Why would we limit the respectable ideas in distinguishing God because we simply accept this narrow box of ideas? We place a box around God when we say the description we accept about God must not be true. God can't be recognized in arguing against the possible ideas that we deliberately introduce that people do not agree with. Everything that lives must sufficiently demonstrate a sufficient reason. We describe every empirical validation of a created thing with operative words that directly convey a descriptive personality. Rather of using the critical argument that we can't mutually understand the thing God has created. We do not have a right to describe that thing because our sanctioned description is always limited by your positive argument that it's a mystery. Consequently, you reject a respectable description also you are simply denying the specific purpose for which we directly distinguish ourselves in applicable comparison to other created objects. Why not say Hey I no way allowed of that the meaningful way you rightly describe it as you see Gods blessed language that you have extensively espoused to describe it? Why do you ignore the description and place it in the order of mystery because you are extremely dull (not with malice) to examine it with your own ideas? It's wrong to limit ideas by crying mystery.