Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

You're not getting it. Something cannot exist on five dimensions of movement without also existing in four, and three, and two, and one. If an object exists in the universe, it must exist in all dimensions that the universe contains. We have yet to see an objects that does not obey this rule, and therefore postulating one into existence does not make sense.

You're making sweeping statements with absolutely no reasoning behind them other than maybes and ifs.

Certainly, the lack of evidence of these things does not rule them out as a possibility, but be rational. If you want something to exist, you don't postulate it into existence and have it magically appear. You must have some real, rational reason to believe it. Show me the math. Show me the theory that demonstrates the possibility of what you're saying. If you can't do that, then don't make the sweeping statements.

[LegoLord]

Wait, what?  When did I say it didn't exist in the other four?  If it didn't, then any suggestion of omnipotence would be impossible, as it would not be able to interact with that in the other four planes (regardless of existing in a single one of the latter planes being impossible).  Just that being in one of those other planes possibly allows it to do things we cannot; chief among them being the ability to avoid detection by 3-dimensional creatures unless it so chooses.  If there were a single dimensional creature, would it be able to observe us at it's own will, or solely at our will?  Not being 1-dimensional creatures, we can't really say.

[woose1]

*Knocks on door*

Hey, it's just Woose1, checking in on you guys to make sure your playing ni-whoaaaah.... physics. No thank you.

[Ampersand]

Not being 1-dimensional creatures...

Exactly.

Wait, what?  When did I say it didn't exist in the other four?  If it didn't, then any suggestion of omnipotence would be impossible, as it would not be able to interact with that in the other four planes (regardless of existing in a single one of the latter planes being impossible).  Just that being in one of those other planes possibly allows it to do things we cannot; chief among them being the ability to avoid detection by 3-dimensional creatures unless it so chooses.  If there were a single dimensional creature, would it be able to observe us at it's own will, or solely at our will?

You're saying that it doesn't exist on the other four implicitly, by stating that it has no tangible form on them.  Unless it wants to is a cop out. Suppose there existed a two dimensional universe that intersects with our three dimensional one. What would they see? They'd see shapes popping into existence and vanishing, changing in size and geometry at will. But most importantly, they'd see -something-, though they'd have no way of describing it other than the particular form the 3 dimensional object projects into 2 dimensional space.

In fact, if current theory holds, then you and I DO exist on multi-dimensional space. All of ARE projections of objects in 10 or 11 dimensions projected upon 3D space. And are we hyperintelligent super beings just because our constituent parts are beyond our safe and comfortable 4D space?

[LegoLord]

We may exist in more than one dimension, but that does not mean we comprehend the others naturally.  If we did, then we would be able to put a name to them - or at least describe them.
If we saw things in four dimensions, we would be able to look at how shiny a rusty sword was 400 years ago just as easily as we might turn it around to seen if the other side was any different.

The omnipotence comes not from existing physically in more than 4-dimensions, but existing mentally in more than x+4 dimensions.  We don't know just how many there are, and being simultaneously conscious of all of them, seeing things as they are projected in each one, would have that omnipotence.  Maybe what the omnipotent being might be works in a completely different way than we do; maybe it works largely by using geometric laws exclusive to its highest plane, and projects in our highest dimensions as something else entirely.  Something that we may mistake for something else, while still being what we see.  We could in fact be component particles of this consciousness, our actions independent of it, affecting what it thinks and does, but it not being restricted by us because there are things other than us that could also compose it.  But we just don't know.

If I'm not being clear, sorry, that's the best way I can think to word it.  What I'm basically trying to say is that things might look very different if we saw more than 3 dimensions.  But right now you're getting dangerously close to trying to prove religion wrong, which is not the point of this thread.  The point is to discuss various explanations of religion or the lack thereof.  Not argue about them, which was going along just fine.

Remember that the view I try to take is the one in the middle, as I have said before.  If you try to argue about it then you are trying to eliminate the possibilities that are not yours, unless you make a suggestion to improve or add to it.

Edit:  There are things a 3D object can do that a 2D can't.  Also, somethings we see as 3D could potentially be made to look like a 2D, through the use of lighting angles and such, and hide the 3D aspects.  I have seen this done with a building before;  I could have sworn, looking right at it, that it looked just like it was made of cardboard. Moving enough to the side or towards it, it then looked 3D again.  God could just be pulling that sort of trick with more dimensions, and we lack the tech or mental capacity to "move closer," so to speak, as we do not know how to change our position on those dimensions at will.  So he might not be and might not exist.  We just don't know.

[Ampersand]

I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm trying to demonstrate that one cannot just throw about theories like this without any backing behind them in an attempt to will something into existence. I explicitly stated that nothing I said Disproves anything, it only demonstrates that a conclusion cannot be reached, yet.

[LegoLord]

And I was not making a conclusion, but presenting a possible explanation.  Hence why I used "could" so much.

[Ampersand]

My point was that saying could doesn't actually demonstrate that such a thing actually could be.

[MrWiggles]

This reminds me of the Ontological argument for god. But conception does not equal reality. Believing in something for sheer sake of possibility, makes believing in anything pointless and without merit.

[LegoLord]

You are an atheist because you find the possibility that there is no god more realistic, yes?  Well, to those that believe in a god, it sounds better to them.  The point isn't to prove anything, except that you cannot prove the existence or lack of gods.  You can make propositions, cut them down, whatever, but without a way to determine just what it is that is going on beyond our senses, we can't say anyone is wrong about this particular issue.  We can say it's unlikely, but we cannot say it's impossible, and therefore we cannot tell another to dismiss their beliefs based on your own guesses.

[MrWiggles]

You are an atheist because you find the possibility that there is no god more realistic, yes?  Well, to those that believe in a god, it sounds better to them.  The point isn't to prove anything, except that you cannot prove the existence or lack of gods.  You can make propositions, cut them down, whatever, but without a way to determine just what it is that is going on beyond our senses, we can't say anyone is wrong about this particular issue.  We can say it's unlikely, but we cannot say it's impossible, and therefore we cannot tell another to dismiss their beliefs based on your own guesses.

Reality isn't guess work.

And I'm an Atheist, for many reasons. And not really because it make the world more real. Personally the term more real is silly. Real is a finite state, which can't be decreased or increase. There just reality. For my self, God was presented as an asshole who was selfish child without ability for empathy at time. This is just from exposure from mass media. I didn't start my devling deeper into religion until I was 15. Every religion is sure they are way to be happy after existence. And almost every religion has clauses stating bad things will happen if you don't believe. Then I looked from different view.
If God was real and interacted then the ones which got it right should stand out in a hopeful positive light. All plight and triumph  happen to everyone everywhere with indifference to religion. The only correlation to charity, and success was human and the work they place in. Then I reason that a god could exist but does not or could not interact. From that, it doesn't matter. Then I stopped looking for the whimsy behind the beauty of nature. I really saw the beauty of nature. Then I found myself in awe of us. You and me, other human alive now and through time and learned what we accomplished. In in realizing that it was just us doing this, was staggering, it was amazing. Even now, my admiration for our spieces I can hardly place into words. I know that human have done terrible acts. I know that we may do terrible acts more vile then thought possible. However, we learn from it. We strive to not let it happen again. Even in Plato time, he was saying that the kids were shitheads. Yet we are on the verge of free universal information.

Human must be on the net gain, decent group. Sure, evolution requires this of us to self propagate, but we evolved to the point were we can override such instincts.  If human didn't learn and couldnt instrinctly self better, then we wouldnt see more and more person living into their triple digits. There wouldnt be six now verging on seven billion of us. Illiteracy wouldnt be declining.

There no reason to take or diminish human ingenuity, hard work and charity and share credit with a being, that at best, is indifference to us.

[LegoLord]

I don't.  I just believe he's there and did, or rather, in some way very vaguely influenced, that which was necessary for us to even exist.  It was unlikely, and it is amazing that we even got to the point where we could stick seeds in the ground to try to get stuff to grow when and where we wanted it to.  Then there is the possibility that this is happening, or something similar to it, somewhere else.

Hell yes humans can be awesome on their own.  That's kind of part of my belief, that he would let us become what we can be on our own.  Yet, there is nothing ruling out the idea that he's not there.  Go ahead and believe that.  I just want you to know that I hold it as little to no whimsy behind nature.

Edit:  I don't know what he did, if he exists, but I believe he's there and did something.  Maybe just start things off for everything.  I don't know.

Have you read a book called Moving Pictures (Terry Pratchett)?  It's got some interesting ideas on how reality could be different than what we think.  Basically why I believe in the face of lack of evidence.  We don't know of any places like that in the book, but hey, who knows?

[Akroma]

I am agnostic

until one form of believe emerges as the undisproveable absolute truth that leaves not even the tiniest possibility of any other form of truth being true (fat chance of that happening), I will play the opportunist

I pick the best of everything according to what I think is a good rule to live by and what I think is not

for instance, the story of the good samarithan. Last summer when it was really hot outside, I met an old man on my way to school. He had collapsed from the heat, so I called an ambulance for him. Instead of just calling it and leaving, I stayed with him until the ambulance arrived, missing a chemistry lesson
there was no reward for that, other than "doing something that is right"


I don't think there is any heaven or hell I can end up in, but at least I know that the old man is doing fine

[Yanlin]

I don't think god is going to send scientists to hell for curing diseases and improving lives.

[Antioch]

I don't think god is going to send scientists to hell for curing diseases and improving lives.

I too find it odd that quality that "god" finds most important (the believing in him) is the accepting of something people say without demanding prove.