Checkmate, Atheists

[Justatruthseeker]

While you're certainly correct that popularity does not imply correctness (I can think of a number of examples without working overly hard), that doesn't change the original point. That science is capable of operating with and verifying the existence (or non-existence) of more than three, or even four, dimensions. In fact, I'd suggest that your link actually proves that point.

I'd say it proves the exact opposite.

"But there is little to build on. So far, no hints of "new physics" beyond the Standard Model — the accepted set of equations describing the known elementary particles..."

Don't get me wrong - they are welcome to fantasize all they like - just don't call it fact yet, especially when they still ain't got 3 figured out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Standard Model is four dimensions of space-time. Because, fundamentally, space and time aren't separate, it is space-time, it's one thing. To that end science already deals with a fourth dimension of space-time in the standard model.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LACanuck]

I'd say it proves the exact opposite.

"But there is little to build on. So far, no hints of "new physics" beyond the Standard Model — the accepted set of equations describing the known elementary particles..."

Don't get me wrong - they are welcome to fantasize all they like - just don't call it fact yet, especially when they still ain't got 3 figured out.

Not sure how it proves that science *can't* deal with four dimension. As I said, being able to create a coherent theory that uses 11 dimensions, have that theory make predictions and have those predictions not pan out is a significant part of the scientific method. So being able to say that SUSY is no longer viable is *exactly* dealing with multiple dimensions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Standard Model is four dimensions of space-time. Because, fundamentally, space and time aren't separate, it is space-time, it's one thing. To that end science already deals with a fourth dimension of space-time in the standard model.

-CryptoLutheran

No you confuse quantum electrodynamics (QED) with General Relativity (GR). General Relativity has never been able to be reduced to the quantum state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

"Although a quantum theory of gravity is needed in order to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when one attempts to apply the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity. From a technical point of view, the problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions."

There are no quantum theories that at their heart are not based off of electrodynamics. Ones that can make actual predictions and is therefor useful at any rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

"QED has served as the model and template for all subsequent quantum field theories."

There is no "fourth" dimension in the Standard Model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

But since mainstream doesn't want to accept electrodynamics as the cause of everything - we have to put up with people trying to keep gravity from being subsumed into electrodynamics.

Because those oil drop experiments tell you much, much more than just the charge of an electron.

 

[VirOptimus]

No disrespect meant, but isn't this trivializing the idea of dimensions? You've just added a variable, not a new dimension in the usual sense of the word. If there is an definition of "4th dimension" as being something like the temperature in the room I can't find it.

Its just to show that mathematicly a 4:th (or really, a n:th) dimension is trivial to represent and therefore not beyond what science can handle. F.ex. there are n:th dimensional geometric figueres in mathematics.

Now, if you by 4:th dimension means a 4:th spatial dimension then thats something else obviously.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Which means what exactly?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

Just because something is Popular - the capitol is important doesn't mean its correct. Would you agree?

Sure, I agree that the Capitol is important. But note that the original question was if science could understand and work with more than three dimensions, not if there actually are more dimensions in some sense.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Who is the only Person that can exist without being created?

Jesus, the man, was created. He was conceived, Mary was pregnant with him for nine months, and then he was born. He was just as human as you, me, and everyone else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus, the man, was created. He was conceived, Mary was pregnant with him for nine months, and then he was born. He was just as human as you, me, and everyone else.

God is not bound by our laws.

Jesus, as the man, may have been begotten; but Jesus, as the God, wasn't.

 

[Strathos]

Who is the only Person that can exist without being created?

We can't checkmate atheists anymore. They removed the chess forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can't checkmate atheists anymore. They removed the chess forum.

I didn't know that!

There goes my 0-1 record against you!

 

[GillDouglas]

I know who you are going for, but I do not recall the bible excluding god from being created. Also, depends on how you define "created".

It's difficult to do, but you cannot perceive God in a human sense or point of view. He exists outside of creation, time, everything. Therefore He always has and will be.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's difficult to do, but you cannot perceive God in a human sense. He exists outside of creation, time, everything. Therefore He always has and will be.

If one cannot perceive god in a human sense, then why do people claim to be able to know of this being at all? Being outside of everything, this being would have been incapable of interacting with those within the universe, because its physics would not have been compatible with that universe's physics.

 

[GillDouglas]

"If one cannot perceive god in a human sense, then why do people claim to be able to know of this being at all? Being outside of everything, this being would have been incapable of interacting with those within the universe, because its physics would not have been compatible with that universe's physics."

Imagine you were a character in a book. Would you know the author unless he revealed himself to you? What would you know about the author other than was he had told you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Imagine you were a character in a book. Would you know the author unless he revealed himself to you? What would you know about the author other than was he had told you?

The author would still have existed in the same universe as me. What part of "conflicting physics preventing interaction" did you not understand?

 

[GillDouglas]

The author would still have existed in the same universe as me. What part of "conflicting physics preventing interaction" did you not understand?

How could the author exist only within the story, and not outside of it? God, the author of this world, is not restrained by the laws in which He created.

 

[JustOneWay]

Who is the only Person that can exist without being created?

Maybe Fred Person?

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/fred-person/15/288/1b9

 

[TLK Valentine]

God is not bound by our laws.

Jesus, as the man, may have been begotten; but Jesus, as the God, wasn't.

Special pleading, then.

 

[The Cadet]

I'm gonna go ahead and say "me".

 

[JasonClark]

Who is the only Person that can exist without being created?

How long has your god been a Person?
I wonder how many others see their god as a Person? is that where the idea of "A magic man in the sky" came from?

 

[AV1611VET]

How long has your god been a Person?

God has always existed: outside of time.

I wonder how many others see their god as a Person?

Why is that?

I hope we all do.

God is the First Person of the Godhead.

is that where the idea of "A magic man in the sky" came from?

Welcome to CF, by the way!