376190585-ISLAMIC-GOD-IS-KNOWABLE-BUT-NOT-COMPREHENSIBLE-BY-FINITE-KNOWLEDGES-OF-FINITE-SUPPOSITA

Page 13 of 36
If it is assumed that Divine Essence [God/Deity] is Unknowable in Itself then this is the view
of 5 th century BCE Sophists and some Atheists 19 and 20 th centuries CE.
It is a kind of Atheism to claim that Human Minds can never know whether God Existeth or
Existenth Not, since this belief annihilates Faith in Divine Essence [God/Deity].
If it is accepted that God/ Deity [Divine Essence] cannot be known by Finite Supposita of
finite Knowledges with the only exception that God/Deity [Divine Essence] can be known by
the Assumed Created Nature then this meaneth that all Knowledges about God/Deity [Divine
Essence/Ousia] Come from the assumed Assumed Male Human Nature.
If this is so then the grounds for this Exception are infinitely weak . Since If it is Impossible
to Know God/Deity [Divine Essence] from any Creation then it is irrelative whether the
Creation is an Assumed Male Human Nature or it is not.
If it is Possible to Know God from Creations then it is once again irrelevant whether a
Particular Creation is an Assumed Male Nature or not.
To claim that it is Impossible to know God from Some Creations and Possible to Know God
from other Creations is a claim with out any Proof. Since the very act of Assumption of the
Created Nature is it self a Creature. As stated in the Eleventh Preliminary it is certainly not
evident whether the one that is seen and sensed by human senses is a Human Person or a
Human Nature, it requires a proof whether the perceived thing is a Male Human Nature or a
Male Human Person.
What kind of proof can demonstrate the act of Created Assumption itself. Since Assumption
if possible requires an agent that is the Assumer. If Assumption implieth an Assumer then it
doeth not imply that the Assumer is God/ Deity or Divine Essence or a Non- Divine Assumer
[Created Assumer].
Once again it shall be claimed that Only God/ Deity / Divine Essence or an Hypostasis Hath
the Power to Assume. But this is a Preposterous argument. This presumes God/Deity before
the act of assumption. This is a Priori and not a Posteriori.
[This is discussed above].
Page 13 of 36