AG: He may have an excuse for not knowing Who God IS
Kosta: Sorry, if you can't detect something, you can't acknowledge its existence. Assuming that God gave "detection tools" only to some, only they would "detect God" and acknowledge that he is. It's like that dog whistle only dogs can hear but we can't.
AG was distinguishing between knowing THAT God is and knowing WHO God is. Using your example, we humans can look at a dog whistle and know THAT it is. It exists. We can't hear it, though. I thought that what AG was saying was that since we all observe and experience creation we all can know THAT God is and so none is with excuse for not knowing. However, only those who have appropriated God's grace (the mechanics are not relevant here) are able to HEAR Him (knowing Him on a personal level). So, some are able to hear the whistle and some are not, but all can see the whistle. Different detection tools detect different things. God gives some detection tools to all for some things and other tools are only appropriated from God by some for other things.
I think you just agreed with Kosta.
Oops, I violated the ping rule in my last post:
I think you just agreed with Kosta.
I thought that what AG was saying was that since we all observe and experience creation we all can know THAT God is
Not necessarily. What she wrote is a leap of faith, an a priori, axiomatic, convenient, starting point, and not something we can know for sure.
So, some are able to hear the whistle and some are not, but all can see the whistle
Again, this is a conjecture. I don't see it that way at all because it doesn't have to be.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!