Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

god and the next dimension

Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 4:42:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
is it possible that god exists in the 4th dimension. Time. If so then perhaps in that dimension alot of questions we ask would be answered. This is a though that I wanted to bat around onto his site.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 4:50:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 4:42:48 PM, Kahvan wrote:
is it possible that god exists in the 4th dimension. Time. If so then perhaps in that dimension alot of questions we ask would be answered. This is a though that I wanted to bat around onto his site.

I've talked about this before with people, but never specifically with the 4th dimension (but in an additional dimension, with string theory, goes into the whole big bang stuff).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 5:00:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No thing can exist in less then all dimensions. Any real object will have all 3 spatial dimensions and also exist in different moments of time.

No dimension is independent in any way from the others. Time is just a dimension for the movement of objects within the spatial dimensions. It's not a seperate world that something can just "exist in."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 5:12:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 5:00:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
No thing can exist in less then all dimensions. Any real object will have all 3 spatial dimensions and also exist in different moments of time.

No dimension is independent in any way from the others. Time is just a dimension for the movement of objects within the spatial dimensions. It's not a seperate world that something can just "exist in."

This pretty much sums it up. It's a nonsensical idea to say that God exists in the 4th dimension called "time." It's absurd.

However, dimension has two meanings. People get confused and equivocate spatial dimensions with otherworldly dimensions like other frequencies of existence or other universes.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 5:12:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 5:00:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
No thing can exist in less then all dimensions. Any real object will have all 3 spatial dimensions and also exist in different moments of time.

No dimension is independent in any way from the others. Time is just a dimension for the movement of objects within the spatial dimensions. It's not a seperate world that something can just "exist in."

String theory will blow your mind, lol (well, maybe). It predicts a number of "extra" dimensions.

Personally, I don't buy it, but I like to play with it and insert it into arguments.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 6:13:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 4:42:48 PM, Kahvan wrote:
is it possible that god exists in the 4th dimension. Time. If so then perhaps in that dimension alot of questions we ask would be answered. This is a though that I wanted to bat around onto his site.

Time? Lol.

http://www.math.columbia.edu...

Strings is fail.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 6:16:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 5:12:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/27/2010 5:00:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
No thing can exist in less then all dimensions. Any real object will have all 3 spatial dimensions and also exist in different moments of time.

No dimension is independent in any way from the others. Time is just a dimension for the movement of objects within the spatial dimensions. It's not a seperate world that something can just "exist in."

String theory will blow your mind, lol (well, maybe). It predicts a number of "extra" dimensions.

Which still does NOT warrant people the right to say that God exists in those dimensions. String theory is very interesting, but it is NOT and argument for God. If anything, it's against the notion of God.

Personally, I don't buy it, but I like to play with it and insert it into arguments.

And it fails.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 6:27:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 6:16:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/27/2010 5:12:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/27/2010 5:00:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
No thing can exist in less then all dimensions. Any real object will have all 3 spatial dimensions and also exist in different moments of time.

No dimension is independent in any way from the others. Time is just a dimension for the movement of objects within the spatial dimensions. It's not a seperate world that something can just "exist in."

String theory will blow your mind, lol (well, maybe). It predicts a number of "extra" dimensions.

Which still does NOT warrant people the right to say that God exists in those dimensions. String theory is very interesting, but it is NOT and argument for God. If anything, it's against the notion of God.

Personally, I don't buy it, but I like to play with it and insert it into arguments.

And it fails.

Actually, it is not an argument against God at all. It actually allows for further possibility of one. In that there very well can be other universes on other branes, and possibly that the big bang was caused by two branes bumping into each other (and so the possibility for a lot of universes becomes possible). That also allows for the idea that "someone" is making them touch and in effect creating the universes intentionally.

Like I said, I don't believe in string theory or m theory, at least not until some actual evidence is found and some serious flaws are figured out, but I like to learn what others are thinking.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 6:37:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
--This is all absurd. These "dimensions" are nothing but descriptions of a single reality. They do not exist any more than numbers. To say that something exists in one of those dimensions is like saying that there are people hiding in the number line.

--I have had/seen the "time physically exists" discussion many times. There is no support for this. Time is a measurement, length is a measurement, width is a measurement, depth is a measurement. They are all measurements which do not physically exist.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 6:59:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 6:37:25 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--This is all absurd. These "dimensions" are nothing but descriptions of a single reality. They do not exist any more than numbers. To say that something exists in one of those dimensions is like saying that there are people hiding in the number line.

--I have had/seen the "time physically exists" discussion many times. There is no support for this. Time is a measurement, length is a measurement, width is a measurement, depth is a measurement. They are all measurements which do not physically exist.
No, they are all parts of physical reality. Things which we measure by comparing lengths of standard units with the length of an object or event.

Time itself isn't a measurement, just as the spatial dimensions are not. They are things can be measured - they are not measurements themselves.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 7:59:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 6:27:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, it is not an argument against God at all. It actually allows for further possibility of one. In that there very well can be other universes on other branes,

The Multiverse is antithetical to God. If you agree with the Multiverse, then you have to abandon the whole Kalam Cosmological argument that whatever came before the Big Bang was God (technically it's "whatever has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning and it's cause is God"). With the Multiverse, we abandon the idea that God came first, and instead the Multiverse "created" our universe.

This is against the notion of God, I don't see how you think it supports it.

and possibly that the big bang was caused by two branes bumping into each other (and so the possibility for a lot of universes becomes possible). That also allows for the idea that "someone" is making them touch and in effect creating the universes intentionally.

Wow. I hope you're joking. God, in his infinite power, can make a universe by snapping his fingers, yet decides to take two universes and smash them together to create another universe. Brilliant!

Like I said, I don't believe in string theory or m theory, at least not until some actual evidence is found and some serious flaws are figured out, but I like to learn what others are thinking.

Why not? String theory has more evidence and is more reasonable that Christianity. How can it not be more convincing than religion?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 8:23:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I never got that interested in trying to describe God in terms of other dimensions. Other dimensions make my head hurt. Anyways, Biblically speaking, the God we are referring to is given the credit for creating time itself. As such, He would not be confined within the 4th dimension (if that is where you want to say time is -- or whatever -- I get lost thinking about that stuff). But given the premise of 3 spacial dimensions and the 4th dimension being time, God would at least have to exist in the 5th dimension. As He created time, He would at least have to be 'beyond' (?) the 4th dimension. Take that as you will.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 3:59:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 8:23:52 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
I never got that interested in trying to describe God in terms of other dimensions. Other dimensions make my head hurt. Anyways, Biblically speaking, the God we are referring to is given the credit for creating time itself. As such, He would not be confined within the 4th dimension (if that is where you want to say time is -- or whatever -- I get lost thinking about that stuff). But given the premise of 3 spacial dimensions and the 4th dimension being time, God would at least have to exist in the 5th dimension. As He created time, He would at least have to be 'beyond' (?) the 4th dimension. Take that as you will.

And how do you know that this 5th dimension does not have its own constraints, its own laws?
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:51:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:59:12 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/27/2010 8:23:52 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
I never got that interested in trying to describe God in terms of other dimensions. Other dimensions make my head hurt. Anyways, Biblically speaking, the God we are referring to is given the credit for creating time itself. As such, He would not be confined within the 4th dimension (if that is where you want to say time is -- or whatever -- I get lost thinking about that stuff). But given the premise of 3 spacial dimensions and the 4th dimension being time, God would at least have to exist in the 5th dimension. As He created time, He would at least have to be 'beyond' (?) the 4th dimension. Take that as you will.

And how do you know that this 5th dimension does not have its own constraints, its own laws?

Dude, I only pointed out that Biblically speaking, God is outside of time. If someone wants to say that the 4th dimension is where time is, then God would have to be at least one dimension beyond that. That's all the more I'm saying here. I already said that I don't try to describe God in terms of extra dimensions, so if you planned on attacking my belief in God based on my lack of explanation of the 5th dimension, I'll nip that in the bud. I don't know if you were, but it sounded like you might.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 1:08:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:51:38 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Dude, I only pointed out that Biblically speaking, God is outside of time. If someone wants to say that the 4th dimension is where time is, then God would have to be at least one dimension beyond that. That's all the more I'm saying here. I already said that I don't try to describe God in terms of extra dimensions, so if you planned on attacking my belief in God based on my lack of explanation of the 5th dimension, I'll nip that in the bud. I don't know if you were, but it sounded like you might.

My argument pertains to the apparent contradiction in yours.

You claim not to describe god in terms of dimensions.

Yet you turn right around and claim that if Time exists as a fourth dimension, then God must necessarily be atleast one step removed out of that dimension, in another dimension.

If you cannot recognize the contradiction, i dont know what else to say.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:27:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 1:08:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/28/2010 7:51:38 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Dude, I only pointed out that Biblically speaking, God is outside of time. If someone wants to say that the 4th dimension is where time is, then God would have to be at least one dimension beyond that. That's all the more I'm saying here. I already said that I don't try to describe God in terms of extra dimensions, so if you planned on attacking my belief in God based on my lack of explanation of the 5th dimension, I'll nip that in the bud. I don't know if you were, but it sounded like you might.

My argument pertains to the apparent contradiction in yours.

You claim not to describe god in terms of dimensions.

Yet you turn right around and claim that if Time exists as a fourth dimension, then God must necessarily be atleast one step removed out of that dimension, in another dimension.

If you cannot recognize the contradiction, i dont know what else to say.

Goodness. I have made no such contradiction. Kahvan stated that given that we shall assume the 4th dimension to be time, can we explain God in terms of said 4th dimension. I clarified that the God of the Bible claims to have created time (Genesis 1:1) and is therefore not contained within time (2 Peter 3:8). As such, this discussion should begin with "can we explain God in terms of the 5th or higher dimension, given that the 4th dimension is time?" It was nothing more than a clarification. The idea of trying to explain God in terms of the time dimension immediately jumped out at me as wrong given what the Bible says about the God we are considering. It's like this:

1. God created time (Genesis 1:1).
2. Time is the fourth dimension (definition for the purpose of this discussion).
3. God created the fourth dimension (transitive property).
4. God is not contained within time (2 Peter 3:8).
5. God is not contained within the fourth dimension (transitive property).

I was only clarifying that this discussion should have started with the 5th dimension, not the 4th (if we define the 4th to be time). This doesn't mean I believe in a 4th or 5th dimension. I am assuming them to be real for the purpose of commenting on this debate. Tkubok, you are doing the exact same thing. You don't believe that God exists, yet you are engaging in a discussion on where He is. You have made the necessary assumption that God is somewhere so that you can throw in your thoughts on the 'where is He' issue.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:27:26 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Goodness. I have made no such contradiction. Kahvan stated that given that we shall assume the 4th dimension to be time, can we explain God in terms of said 4th dimension. I clarified that the God of the Bible claims to have created time (Genesis 1:1) and is therefore not contained within time (2 Peter 3:8). As such, this discussion should begin with "can we explain God in terms of the 5th or higher dimension, given that the 4th dimension is time?" It was nothing more than a clarification. The idea of trying to explain God in terms of the time dimension immediately jumped out at me as wrong given what the Bible says about the God we are considering. It's like this:
You did pose it as a question, you posed it as a statement. You said, and i quote:

have to exist in the 5th dimension.

Although, first off, the bible is not the only source of information about God, the 4th dimension is time, this is a simple fact of science, and therefore you were making an absolute statement.

1. God created time (Genesis 1:1).
2. Time is the fourth dimension (definition for the purpose of this discussion).
3. God created the fourth dimension (transitive property).
4. God is not contained within time (2 Peter 3:8).
5. God is not contained within the fourth dimension (transitive property).

First of all, 2 peter 3:8 says nothing about God creating time. Have you read the passage?

Secondly, what does transitive property have to do with God creating time, or exclude God being subject to something he created?

I was only clarifying that this discussion should have started with the 5th dimension, not the 4th (if we define the 4th to be time). This doesn't mean I believe in a 4th or 5th dimension. I am assuming them to be real for the purpose of commenting on this debate. Tkubok, you are doing the exact same thing. You don't believe that God exists, yet you are engaging in a discussion on where He is. You have made the necessary assumption that God is somewhere so that you can throw in your thoughts on the 'where is He' issue.

Firstly, let me ask you this. Do you believe that God exists outside of time, or within time, and did he create time?

Secondly, no, im not. I have no problem with assuming that God exists, for the sake of argument, but only for the sake of argument. People can do that, when they are arguing a specific argument. For example, the omnipotenc of God. I dont believe in God, yet, for the sake of argument, i can assume first that God exists, and then address the problems with Omnipotence.

I mean, i think we are having one of those moments we had before, where youve presented an idea that you dont specifically believe in, but dont seem to be denying in any way. Why do you keep using the "From the bibles standpoint" if you do not believe in the bible, and why cant you, if you dont believe in the bible, state your own beliefs?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 3:20:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 4:42:48 PM, Kahvan wrote:
is it possible that god exists in the 4th dimension. Time. If so then perhaps in that dimension alot of questions we ask would be answered. This is a though that I wanted to bat around onto his site.

God invented sequential existence (time) and exists outside and independent of His creation.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 5:30:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 1/27/2010 4:42:48 PM, Kahvan wrote:
is it possible that god exists in the 4th dimension. Time. If so then perhaps in that dimension alot of questions we ask would be answered. This is a though that I wanted to bat around onto his site.

Time is the 4th dimension, God is timeless so God surpasses this dimension. God exceeds all dimensions, in that no dimension restricts Him.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 6:07:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:32:30 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:27:26 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Goodness. I have made no such contradiction. Kahvan stated that given that we shall assume the 4th dimension to be time, can we explain God in terms of said 4th dimension. I clarified that the God of the Bible claims to have created time (Genesis 1:1) and is therefore not contained within time (2 Peter 3:8). As such, this discussion should begin with "can we explain God in terms of the 5th or higher dimension, given that the 4th dimension is time?" It was nothing more than a clarification. The idea of trying to explain God in terms of the time dimension immediately jumped out at me as wrong given what the Bible says about the God we are considering. It's like this:
You did pose it as a question, you posed it as a statement. You said, and i quote:

have to exist in the 5th dimension.

Although, first off, the bible is not the only source of information about God, the 4th dimension is time, this is a simple fact of science, and therefore you were making an absolute statement.

1. God created time (Genesis 1:1).
2. Time is the fourth dimension (definition for the purpose of this discussion).
3. God created the fourth dimension (transitive property).
4. God is not contained within time (2 Peter 3:8).
5. God is not contained within the fourth dimension (transitive property).

First of all, 2 peter 3:8 says nothing about God creating time. Have you read the passage?

Secondly, what does transitive property have to do with God creating time, or exclude God being subject to something he created?

I was only clarifying that this discussion should have started with the 5th dimension, not the 4th (if we define the 4th to be time). This doesn't mean I believe in a 4th or 5th dimension. I am assuming them to be real for the purpose of commenting on this debate. Tkubok, you are doing the exact same thing. You don't believe that God exists, yet you are engaging in a discussion on where He is. You have made the necessary assumption that God is somewhere so that you can throw in your thoughts on the 'where is He' issue.

Firstly, let me ask you this. Do you believe that God exists outside of time, or within time, and did he create time?

Read more carefully. I did not claim that 2 Peter 3:8 says anything about God creating time. I said that 2 Peter 3:8 demonstrates that God is not bound by time. Genesis 1:1 is what I pointed to to say that God created time. Fail.

If for some reason I haven't made it painfully clear already, here it is. I believe God created time. I believe God is not bound by time (meaning He is outside of time).
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:21:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
food for thought on the God in other dimensions idea:

Food for thought? More like a bit of humor.

"Let us imagine a land of two dimensions, having length and breadth but not height, called Flatland, represented by ABCD in Fig. 1. It is inhabited by intelligent beings, shown as triangles inside circles, all of whom also occupy only two dimensions"

All I can do is sigh...

But then again, it is an analogy created by a guy who claimed that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and human existed together. What can you expect?
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 9:08:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:21:32 AM, Floid wrote:
food for thought on the God in other dimensions idea:

Food for thought? More like a bit of humor.

"Let us imagine a land of two dimensions, having length and breadth but not height, called Flatland, represented by ABCD in Fig. 1. It is inhabited by intelligent beings, shown as triangles inside circles, all of whom also occupy only two dimensions"

All I can do is sigh...

But then again, it is an analogy created by a guy who claimed that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and human existed together. What can you expect?

You obviously have no idea that Flatland is a book written in 1884 in which a three dimensional sphere stumbles upon a two dimensional world. The author was using this story as an analogy. HE DID NOT CREATE THIS ANALOGY as you falsely claim. If you want to sigh at something he says, at least pick an original statement of his. He refered to a 126 year old book. You'd do well to do a bit of research before insulting someone.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 4:38:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You obviously have no idea that Flatland is a book written in 1884 in which a three dimensional sphere stumbles upon a two dimensional world. The author was using this story as an analogy. HE DID NOT CREATE THIS ANALOGY as you falsely claim. If you want to sigh at something he says, at least pick an original statement of his. He refered to a 126 year old book. You'd do well to do a bit of research before insulting someone.

Then please read the link you post next time and premention because it states:

"The concepts of Flatland, extra dimensions, event horizons, and so forth as presented here come from a 1987 book, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory by the late Professor-Dr Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995)."
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2010 9:18:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 4:38:05 AM, Floid wrote:
You obviously have no idea that Flatland is a book written in 1884 in which a three dimensional sphere stumbles upon a two dimensional world. The author was using this story as an analogy. HE DID NOT CREATE THIS ANALOGY as you falsely claim. If you want to sigh at something he says, at least pick an original statement of his. He refered to a 126 year old book. You'd do well to do a bit of research before insulting someone.

Then please read the link you post next time and premention because it states:

"The concepts of Flatland, extra dimensions, event horizons, and so forth as presented here come from a 1987 book, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory by the late Professor-Dr Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995)."

That book is based on the 1884 original. Either way, your initial reply was "All I can do is sigh...

But then again, it is an analogy created by a guy who claimed that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and human existed together. What can you expect?"

The analogy was not his invention. You are still wrong.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2010 2:41:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 4:38:05 AM, Floid wrote:
You obviously have no idea that Flatland is a book written in 1884 in which a three dimensional sphere stumbles upon a two dimensional world. The author was using this story as an analogy. HE DID NOT CREATE THIS ANALOGY as you falsely claim. If you want to sigh at something he says, at least pick an original statement of his. He refered to a 126 year old book. You'd do well to do a bit of research before insulting someone.

Then please read the link you post next time and premention because it states:

"The concepts of Flatland, extra dimensions, event horizons, and so forth as presented here come from a 1987 book, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory by the late Professor-Dr Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995)."

FYI: if you do have the chance to read flatland, take it. its brilliant.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 7:34:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The analogy was not his invention. You are still wrong.

The example of a two dimensional world called Flatland was not his own. The analogy of Flatland being analogous to how we can't detect God was...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 7:36:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And I am sorry for the confusion, maybe I should have posted the entire website or at least a more sigh worthy bit of nonsense such as:

"When Adam was formed and until he sinned, he was a hybrid (dimensionally speaking). In the Garden of Eden, he walked with God, who inhabits eternity, and he thus experienced something of the multi-dimensions of eternity, but he also existed in space-time. When he disobeyed God, God expelled him from Eden to prevent him from eating from the tree of life and living forever (Genesis 3:22, 24) in a sinful condition.

So God has provided a way whereby we can be reunited with Himself. Whereas Adam's sin closed the event horizon to the heavenly dimension for mankind,"
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 9:01:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2010 2:41:53 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/25/2010 4:38:05 AM, Floid wrote:
You obviously have no idea that Flatland is a book written in 1884 in which a three dimensional sphere stumbles upon a two dimensional world. The author was using this story as an analogy. HE DID NOT CREATE THIS ANALOGY as you falsely claim. If you want to sigh at something he says, at least pick an original statement of his. He refered to a 126 year old book. You'd do well to do a bit of research before insulting someone.

Then please read the link you post next time and premention because it states:

"The concepts of Flatland, extra dimensions, event horizons, and so forth as presented here come from a 1987 book, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory by the late Professor-Dr Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995)."

FYI: if you do have the chance to read flatland, take it. its brilliant.

I plan to but I probably won't get around to it for a while.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)