It's a simple fact that we are 3-D people. As 3-D sentient objects we are able to create things at least theoretically in the 1st and 2nd demensions (we can only imagine true 1-D lines and the closest 2-D object we can create is a projection of an illusion image). It is also true that without the lower demensions of 2-D and 1-D, we as 3-D people could not exist. And without a 3-D object existing as a single point in time, we could not conceptualize the 4-D world which for each 3-D,2-D,-1-D object contians the entire existence of the objects. For example, the existence of a 3-D person in the 4-D world is like watching and an infinitely long line of the same person. You would see a sperm and egg cell converge into a single embryo and the line goes infinitely long as the corpse of the person decomposes and branches in infinite directions as it scatters about the earth.
But the point of this explanation is that as 3-D people we can conceptualize and create 2-D. However, we cannot have a sentient 2-D object no matter what. We can't even begin trying to create a 1-D object so we certainly can't create a sentient one. We are not aware of their existence and their activities. It stands then that the creator is not aware of the creation's existence as a possibly living being. But seeing as 2-D, from another point of view is the creator of 3-D, that means that the things we draw on paper are not aware that someone created, even if they are living breathing things in their world. This is a parallel to the 3-D. If a 4-D sentient being drew on a piece of 4-D paper, conceptually it would have created a 3-D object. Perhaps this object turns out to be sentient as well. But since 4-D beings will only recognize other living beings as Expanses of Time (4-D object) then they draw 3-D objects (Single points in expanses of time) It is not aware it has created a living breathing being in a different dimension, and we are not aware that we have been created.
SHouldn't satire be in General?
At 3/5/09 12:27 PM, Brick-top wrote: SHouldn't satire be in General?
I did not see it as satire. Wall of text though AGH.
It's a string-theory/tenth dimension argument.
At 3/5/09 12:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:At 3/5/09 12:27 PM, Brick-top wrote: SHouldn't satire be in General?I did not see it as satire. Wall of text though AGH.
It's a string-theory/tenth dimension argument.
It doesn't really support the Science/God-God/Science suggestion. So I'm cliaming satire.
At 3/5/09 12:20 PM, EKublai wrote: It's a simple fact that we are 3-D people. As 3-D sentient objects we are able to create things at least theoretically in the 1st and 2nd demensions (we can only imagine true 1-D lines and the closest 2-D object we can create is a projection of an illusion image). It is also true that without the lower demensions of 2-D and 1-D, we as 3-D people could not exist. And without a 3-D object existing as a single point in time, we could not conceptualize the 4-D world which for each 3-D,2-D,-1-D object contians the entire existence of the objects. For example, the existence of a 3-D person in the 4-D world is like watching and an infinitely long line of the same person. You would see a sperm and egg cell converge into a single embryo and the line goes infinitely long as the corpse of the person decomposes and branches in infinite directions as it scatters about the earth.
But the point of this explanation is that as 3-D people we can conceptualize and create 2-D. However, we cannot have a sentient 2-D object no matter what. We can't even begin trying to create a 1-D object so we certainly can't create a sentient one. We are not aware of their existence and their activities. It stands then that the creator is not aware of the creation's existence as a possibly living being. But seeing as 2-D, from another point of view is the creator of 3-D, that means that the things we draw on paper are not aware that someone created, even if they are living breathing things in their world. This is a parallel to the 3-D. If a 4-D sentient being drew on a piece of 4-D paper, conceptually it would have created a 3-D object. Perhaps this object turns out to be sentient as well. But since 4-D beings will only recognize other living beings as Expanses of Time (4-D object) then they draw 3-D objects (Single points in expanses of time) It is not aware it has created a living breathing being in a different dimension, and we are not aware that we have been created.
That just means that a 4th dimensional quasi-omnipotent being is possible, not that such a being exists. That's a non-trivial point. If we're just projections of a 4-dimensional space, and there are 4-dimensional creatures, then they'd have as much power over us as you have over a piece of paper. They'd be able to withdraw from our space easily, insert themselves into any locus of points in our universe (i know what you're thinking, pervert). That's not exactly a God, because the 4-D beings wouldn't have true omnipotence. For example, if one came into your house, you'd still be able to use force against them, and maybe kill them so they wouldn't be able to retreat out of 3D space. But if they did manage to retreat you'd be screwed because they could go inside your body and mess things up (seriously, get your mind out of the gutter).
(Here I'm leaving out spacetime entirely, and assuming that all of these beings, 3D and 4D, are in space time).
@BrickTop, I don't think this is a satire. I had a math teacher who once said that a 4-D being would be comparable to God. And I think he's right.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
No, this doesn't support God. It supports the Reptilian conspiracy. Reptilians are said to live in 4-D world.
It supports the concept of any kind of being, god-like or not, living in other dimensions. Right?
What do you think it supports.
lol reptiles
So how does science support the idea of God?
This shows no actual evidence of a God like being existing in the 4th dimension, it just states that if one did it would be God like to us. This is no different than the Spaghetti Monster theory.
I don't see how this has anything to do with science.
It sounds like someone just read 'Flatland' for the first time. :P
At 3/5/09 02:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:
This shows no actual evidence of a God like being existing in the 4th dimension, it just states that if one did it would be God like to us. This is no different than the Spaghetti Monster theory.
I would say someone living in the forth dimension is more likely than that. As we are already living in the third.
Maybe if we lived amongst animals that were made of spaghetti and could control other animals it would be the same thing. He's saying that all this needs is one non-supernatural being living in one of the higher dimensions.
Like. Dr. Manhattan.
That reminds me of the experience that caused me to reject atheism:
I was in a pet store, and I saw this turtle in a tiny cage (perhaps a few cubic feet in size), leaning against the class walls. What's that turtle's perception of things? Of course it could try to posit grandiose theories of everything, but it lacks the intelligence or information to have a complete world view. More importantly, it's beyond the poor turtle's comprehension to even realize that its deductive reasoning has limits. When virtually every animal in the world has a world view that seems pathetically incomplete and local to us, isn't it sheer hubris for us humans to think that we know everything?
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
That is a good theory, but there is one problem. In all of those scenarios the being that was created does not know where it came from, and we know where we came from, at least to a certain point, thanks to evolution.
A former rebellion is just a present conformity
http://cbp.newgrounds.com/
At 3/5/09 12:20 PM, EKublai wrote:
:Perhaps this object turns out to be sentient as well. But since 4-D beings will only recognize other living beings as Expanses of Time (4-D object) then they draw 3-D objects (Single points in expanses of time) It is not aware it has created a living breathing being in a different dimension, and we are not aware that we have been created.
I don't mean this in a negative light, but I seriously want some of what you were high on when you wrote this! Ive seen people on acid make more sense.
NAHM NAHM NAHM
At 3/5/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: When virtually every animal in the world has a world view that seems pathetically incomplete and local to us, isn't it sheer hubris for us humans to think that we know everything?
It's sheer hubris for us humans to even think we possibly canknow everything, for that matter.
"NGs! now with +1 medical consultation." -SolInvictus
At 3/5/09 12:36 PM, Brick-top wrote:At 3/5/09 12:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:It doesn't really support the Science/God-God/Science suggestion. So I'm cliaming satire.At 3/5/09 12:27 PM, Brick-top wrote: SHouldn't satire be in General?I did not see it as satire. Wall of text though AGH.
It's a string-theory/tenth dimension argument.
Maybe you lack the ability to visualize things through any eyes but yours. It doesn't look like he's trying to prove that God exists, but instead try to gain understanding on how and where a God would exist, should one exist. In that sense, Science "supports," as in allows for, a God, but doesn't necessarily prove it.
If you think it's satire, then provide something or rethink yourself, because nobody else has so far.
"NGs! now with +1 medical consultation." -SolInvictus
At 3/5/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: isn't it sheer hubris for us humans to think that we know everything?
How many actually claim to know everything?
At 3/5/09 12:39 PM, Al6200 wrote: That just means that a 4th dimensional quasi-omnipotent being is possible, not that such a being exists.
Well, it shows that it's possible at least.
Personally, my best argument would say that energy is never created or destroyed, and the only way the Universe could come into being is if there was some way to defy the laws of science, and with God being God, he could do that.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
If you consider time as the fourth dimension (which I don't necessarily, but that's besides the point) then something that is able to move back and forth through it and/or be able to see things in full view as time stretches from one end to the other would certainly fit into many descriptions of a Supreme Being that seems to have the qualities of eternalness or 'pre-existence'. It also casts a shade of doubt on the suggestion put forth by the skeptically-minded that "If God affected the world in any sort of way then we should be able to measure it." -- at least for the ways they WANT to measure it!
If we exist in 3D only and then God extended into that 3D-ness for us, then the only measurements we could possibly make is of the extensions into 3D-ness and below... never of the extensions of the possible 4 or 5 or 6 or 7D-ness of God in whatever dimensions we don't occupy. Naturally, any measurement we take would be missing all sorts of relevant information -- you can take one slice out of a tree stump and measure its diameter and count its rings and find its age... but you can't measure how tall the tree was, or how many branches it had or how many leaves... you can't take that slice of a stump and measure all the goings-ons of the animals that lived in the tree's protection throughout the years. The measurement of the stump can't give you the full context of the tree.
See... the only way we could measure how God extends into higher dimensions besides the three we immediately perceive with our senses is if... WE ALREADY EXIST IN HIGHER DIMENSIONS OURSELVES.If we already exist in higher dimensions then naturally, we should be privy to what those other dimensions contain! That means it's a question of what the particular qualities of those dimensions are and how they are defined... which I imagine inevitably has something to do with how they each stand completely perpendicular with respect to all the other dimensions. Simply put -- EACH DIMENSION IS MEASURED ON ITS OWN AXIS. What's more, traveling across one axis doesn't mean that change can't occur on another axis... after all, the more dimensions you have, the more combinatorial opportunities there are to change across the bounds of all their perpendicular fields. A movement across one axis could potentially incite change across ANY OR ALL of the other axes!
The idea is this: Take the things you see or hear into consideration, sure, but the perception of higher dimensions means REALIZING WHICH AXIS OR AXES YOU ARE TRYING TO MEASURE! Let's use gravity as an example. The Earth's mass is what causes things to be drawn to it, "downward," by the force of gravitation. If we're studying that relationship, we're more concerned about the axis that exists between the Earth's center-of-gravity and the object's center-of-gravity, or in other words, we see it as dealing with the vertical-ness of things as opposed to the horizontal-ness of things. Now sure, the horizontal plane can have something to do with what goes on in the vertical plane (ramps and slopes and all that jszz), but the primary measurement we're concerned with is the vertical. Sky-divers are more concerned about their vertical path than their horizontal path, basically. If you want to study a particular field of effect you have to be focusing on the primary axis of change first...
So who wants to take a guess as to what the qualities of those other axes might be defined by?
How do they stand perpendicular in relation to the others we try to measure?
The idea of measurement is important here.
What things do we attempt to measure that don't rely on height, width, depth or the things in its domain such as mass, density, volume, velocity, etc?
At 3/5/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: When virtually every animal in the world has a world view that seems pathetically incomplete and local to us, isn't it sheer hubris for us humans to think that we know everything?
Im an atheist and I never claim to know everything. No one does.
I simply take the small amount of information given to me in my turtle cage and see no proof for god so I don't believe.
There could be a god. There also could be unicorns. There is just no proof.
Siggy
Feeling angsty?
Well if there's a fourth dimension (and I've read about it and it would be like being a god). Imagine the dimensions above that, would that then support the Greek theory of not only Gods, but Titans (aka the fifth dimension, which I will not try to mentally conceptualize) as well. And then we have to go above that, what about a sixth, seventh, eighth, nineth, or even a possible tenth dimensions. Wouldn't that make the thought of possible dimensions infinite and impossible to conceptualize (until of course technology continues further and someday might produce it).
I mean its just a theory overall and I don't blame you for thinking that way. I used to too. It was interesting thought, that Heaven is just the fourth dimension and guardian angels are just fourth dimensional beings. But what if God's a fifth dimensional being, so as to put himself above angels?
NEW SONG AT THE MOMENT!!!: Alice Gone Killed the Muffin Man
Psil0 ON SOUNDCLOUD!!!
At 3/5/09 07:33 PM, aninjaman wrote:At 3/5/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: When virtually every animal in the world has a world view that seems pathetically incomplete and local to us, isn't it sheer hubris for us humans to think that we know everything?Im an atheist and I never claim to know everything. No one does.
I simply take the small amount of information given to me in my turtle cage and see no proof for god so I don't believe.
There could be a god. There also could be unicorns. There is just no proof.
Though I ahven't the faintest of what these other people are talking about I'll chime in on this guy.
If you don't claim to know everything then you can't say there is no God or that there is no evidence of him, as far as you know the direct evidence to god is in the GIANT part that you don't know, so you can't be sure of anything can you, lol.
The fact that there are horses, and unicorns are our imagination of a horse having a horn on its head, the only beef people have is that they've never seen a physical manafestation of it so they conclude there are none, so you people claim there is no god because you simply have never seen him (and I hope we humans never do, just causious of what that could do to us, make us explode er die instantly) that doesn't suddenly give you the know how that he doesn't exist since you've already established that you don't know everything.
So I suppose it's people's inability to imagine something that is nonmaterial though it can be present in any plain of existance it chooses since it created them, as far as anyone knows, religion n spirituality is as far as we'll get and we may not be able to do even that for much longer seeing as how dumb we're getting ((hinting the big flood of Noah and the drop in oxygen level that made us become what we are today))
I dunno if this post was supposed to be a joke but just wanted to reply to that one.
I'm just going to throw this out there.
If there are infinite dimensions, then god can exist, since there would always be someone more powerful then him.
But if there are finite dimensions (which of course would have to end at 5 to prove the modern theistic thoughts correct, going in this order mortality, heaven/afterlife, gods own little world).
I must say, wouldn't you get lonely in your own little world? And the thought of immortality only supports this, I mean wouldn't you dream of an afterlife for yourself always yearning for the end? This also supports my thought that if god is emotionless, then we couldn't have been created in his image, we were randomly generated by an ethereal Super Computer, which does nothing but run its own vastly superior version of a game I like to call Sim Multi-Dimensional Universe.
NEW SONG AT THE MOMENT!!!: Alice Gone Killed the Muffin Man
Psil0 ON SOUNDCLOUD!!!
At 3/5/09 10:47 PM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: This also supports my thought that if god is emotionless, then we couldn't have been created in his image, we were randomly generated by an ethereal Super Computer, which does nothing but run its own vastly superior version of a game I like to call Sim Multi-Dimensional Universe.
Well I wouldn't go as far to call God emotionless, his standards are perfect n he wont accept anything but, so when he created us, he created us to be perfect wouldn't you agree?
But the problem was he gave us free will so we could choose to love him, we've all learned that forcing somone to love you is wrong and it isn't true love at all.
So when we disobeyed him he didn't see fit to be with us anymore, thats why he gave us pain, death, disease n all the other bad things, so we could learn that though there are....wonderful things and that good should be the only thing we know, there are hirribly bad things, through this way of learning we become to understand God and we are to ask for his forgivness even though we don't deserve it.
That has NO scientific bearing. Prove it.
NGMartial Arts Club Are you Man...
MUSIC | or a little, dying cosmic whore...
Speak with your actions, come from your core.
No really, god is an emotionless super computer that runs a game called Sim multi-dimensional universe. Its like running madden on simulation mode for entire seasons on end non-stop. No control.
NEW SONG AT THE MOMENT!!!: Alice Gone Killed the Muffin Man
Psil0 ON SOUNDCLOUD!!!
At 3/5/09 06:56 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: So who wants to take a guess as to what the qualities of those other axes might be defined by?
How do they stand perpendicular in relation to the others we try to measure?
Because any measurement is a function of relativity. If they are parallel or skew they do not cross, thus debunking the idea that they interact (from a subjective, singular viewpoint), thus MUST intersect to be considered from such a viewpoint.
The idea of measurement is important here.
What things do we attempt to measure that don't rely on height, width, depth or the things in its domain such as mass, density, volume, velocity, etc?
Intelligence, worth...
Functions of higher dimensions. Any speculation about such things we currently assume things based on is mathematical and based on... SPECULATION.
hooray.
NGMartial Arts Club Are you Man...
MUSIC | or a little, dying cosmic whore...
Speak with your actions, come from your core.
At 3/5/09 11:40 PM,Lagerkapo wrote:
That has NO scientific bearing. Prove it.
(Smacks Lagerkapo with a Bible) read it.
You shouldn't smack people with bibles, you could ruin their faces. And including all the lawsuits for assault, I mean really if you're going to smack someone smack them with something interesting like "The Lord of the Rings" or H.P. Lovecrafts work.
NEW SONG AT THE MOMENT!!!: Alice Gone Killed the Muffin Man
Psil0 ON SOUNDCLOUD!!!
At 3/5/09 11:49 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: (Smacks Lagerkapo with a Bible) read it.
That's not really proof. That's just a version of what God wants, the Quran (also said to be the only book you need to understand God) has some different ideas.
Plus he asked for SCIENTIFIC evidence, The Bible isn't science, it's faith based. So this line of argument falls flat on it's face.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
There are so many intricate aspects of science that culminate around our universe I can't see how a simple "well God made it that way" suffices. Why was Norse mythology so quick to go and if Muslims and Christians supposedly believe in one God then why do are we at constant odds against them?
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
