In the beginning there was a proposition, which proposed, "Suppose, for the sake of argument, an Omnipotent Being that is independent of time and space, created the Universe and everything in it,".I think you misunderstand my position.I don't see how being unable to comprehend something is a basis for drawing conclusions about it.Yes, it is.Suppose, for the sake of argument, an Omnipotent Being that is independent of time and space, created the Universe and everything in it, which we observe today. Is the fact that humans do not understand how it happened, evidence that such a being does not exist?
It isn't very strong evidence; But it gets stronger each time we discover more accurate and detailed ways to describe the universe, without finding any hints whatsoever of the alleged omnipotent creator.
By the end of the twentieth century, it had become clear that we understand all of the interactions that are possible at scales relevant to humans, and still there's no hint of any gods - which rules out all the other major ideas of the people who hypothesised an omnipotent creator to begin with. That's pretty compelling evidence that their remaining idea isn't coming from a source worthy of our respect.
If some guy claims to have been kidnapped by aliens in a flying saucer, and we know that he has a long history of telling tall tales, and we have found zero evidence to support his claim, and the only people who are supporting his claim are those who supported his earlier false claims, then that's pretty good evidence that the aliens in flying saucers don't exist.
Even if aliens in flying saucers in fact DO exist, it would be foolish to believe that they do, based on the evidence before us in that scenario.
The evidence boils down to 'we cannot 100% definitely prove that this unevidenced speculation isn't true', which is the same level of evidence we have that there is no flying spaghetti monster.
Our evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist is exactly as good as our evidence that an omnipotent creator doesn't exist.
I am saying that we DO comprehend things, and that our comprehension rules out the assertions being made by people who are a) ignorant of the state of human knowledge; and b) desperately hoping that because they don't comprehend the subject they thought they owned, therefore nobody comprehends it.
The fact that either our best physical theories, that have been experimentally tested to vast precision, repeatedly and independently, and never found to deviate from reality by one iota, are seriously and obviously wrong; OR gods (as described by every major religion in history, and the vast majority of the minor ones) are impossible.The fact that so many people who thought they did comprehend it turned out to be incorrect, does not change that.
The only god concepts not ruled out by modern physics are a tiny number of unpopular ideas that avoid being demonstrably wrong by not saying anything in particular about anything much.
That most people lack the understanding of reality to grasp that their beliefs must be false is a failure of our education systems. But it's an unavoidable conclusion - the God of the Gaps ran out of gaps when the Higgs boson was confirmed to exist, and to match its theorised properties, at CERN.
A large number of ideas that had been assumed to be the domain of philosophy and theology turn out to be addressed by physics - and in so doing have shat on the careers of a lot of philosophers and theists who never expected their navel gazing to become testable.
The idea of this kind of proposition is to accept it for the sake of argument, instead of arguing whether it is true or false, and proceed to discuss whether a human has any possibility of understanding such a thing.
As I said above, a list of things about which people have been wrong, does not have any bearing on some other truth. Just as people once thought the sun could breed maggots in a dead dog, does not mean that flies do not exist.