I didn't think that was my point. I was trying to follow up on EGGO, pointing out the foolishness in necessarily merely claiming something as not understandable regardless of circumstances by demonstrating that one can apply logic and understanding even to beings and objects, as you said, "beyond just our three dimensions and time". Just because something is in a higher dimension doesn't mean theoretical science can't be applied to it - if it did, string theory (Applicable only in 10 or 26 dimensions) would have been thrown out long ago. I shall grant that my arguments were geared entirely against the omnipotent, omnipresent God, and not a merely superhuman god (Which, as I said, I agree is a possibility), and that you haven't clarified that your deity of choice is necessarily either of those, but given the use of capitalization, I would assume that you do refer to the God I argue against.altho i have seen some people use alot of logic like you just did to show that it is very probable that God exists.
Still, one could argue for pink invisible unicorns existing just as effectively as one could argue for or against God. Logic tells us that they're invisible, and faith tells us that they're pink, after all...if something is defined as being beyond logic or proof, the basic rejoinder can only be, as Feynman said, "It's so crazy that it's not even wrong."
