And what definition would that be?
So you can't even respond to my question in English and it's my loss? I ask for an answer and you give me something that is unintelligible and then you blame me? That's rich.
So anything called a God must be WITHOUT limits?
What else in transcendent?
This is suspiciously circular. You'll have to do better. Maybe a well-reasoned response instead of a soundbite.
Wholly transcendent ≠ immanent and transcendent
Again, something more than a soundbite. You're just using more technobabble to support your original technobabble. I might as well say that being splarffy means to have the property of shnookelness. It's all still meaningless, isn't it?
Then you clearly do not understand what mythology actually is. I'm sorry for your loss.
Enough with the patronizing. Mythology tells us nothing verifiably true about the real world. It can tell us ideas, yes, but it does not provide explanations for concrete things. When it tells us how the leopard got his spots, for example, it is not describing the actual reason why leopards are spotted. Science does that. Mythology can only deal in metaphors and simile. It does not deal in actual events, actual causes and effects.
Oh please. Didn't you say, "God is not something that can be defined. It is something that can be experienced, but when one puts it to words, then they have made it something it is not"?
That's exactly how I feel when I watch TV. Don't blame me for your inability to explain something.