Checkmate, Atheists

[AV1611VET]

Not really no, mathematicly a fourt dimension is trivial to represent and also used very often in basic engineering, science and so on. For exampel, say that I want to represent temperature in a room in all points, then I need a x, y, z coordinate and also a temperature reading which then becomes the fourth dimension. You can kepp adding data like this to get many dimensions.

That's why I stipulated a fourth dimension of space.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not, science deals with many more dimensions than that. Some branches of string theory with as many as 26 dimensions, and the currently popular M-theory with 11 dimensions.

So if science can accept what they can't see as science, why do they automatically rule out God as supernatural?

 

[VirOptimus]

So if science can accept what they can't see as science, why do they automatically rule out God as supernatural?

Science doesnt accept anything, science isnt an entity. Only people can accept or deny things and concepts.

Science deals with reality, if a creator was a part of physical reality then the scientific method could adress it/him/her, but the concept of a creator as it is stipulated by religon is always metaphysical and therefore not possible to adress with science.

Gods/magic is by its very nature something that is not possible to adress by science and therefore in the realm of belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gods/magic is by its very nature something that is not possible to adress by science and therefore in the realm of belief.

So a magic show operates outside the realm of science?

 

[VirOptimus]

So a magic show operates outside the realm of science?

Now you are being delibaretely obtuse.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you are being delibaretely obtuse.

I defend against this blasphemy:

Gods/magic ...

... and I'm being 'delibarately [sic] obtuse'?

Fine.

You're being deliberately blasphemous.

 

[VirOptimus]

I defend against this blasphemy:



... and I'm being 'delibarately [sic] obtuse'?

As you know what I meant, yes.

Sorry about my spelling, english is not my first language.

 

[AV1611VET]

As you know what I meant, yes.

I know you meant to say it.

I'm not stupid.

Ignorant, yes.

Stupid, no.

 

[HitchSlap]

the Bible claims that God has always existed. How if He has always existed was He created?

... wait...wut?? I thought all things designed/created have a creator... isn't that ID 101?

 

[Oncedeceived]

... wait...wut?? I thought all things designed/created have a creator... isn't that ID 101?

That is a condition in the material universe.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is a condition in the material universe.

Ah, so you believe in the something from nothing, school of thought. Your god is sounding more & more less likely.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah, so you believe in the something from nothing, school of thought. Your god is sounding more & more less likely.

Ok, how is that "less" likely?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok, how is that "less" likely?

Do you have an example of something, from nothing?

 

[jacks]

Not really no, mathematicly a fourt dimension is trivial to represent and also used very often in basic engineering, science and so on. For exampel, say that I want to represent temperature in a room in all points, then I need a x, y, z coordinate and also a temperature reading which then becomes the fourth dimension. You can kepp adding data like this to get many dimensions.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

So if science can accept what they can't see as science, why do they automatically rule out God as supernatural?

Science works the other way around. Science accepts positive claims that are backed by positive evidence. If you want God as part of science, then you need to bring forward positive evidence for God.

 

[Lost Angel]

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

No person was created.
Checkmate. Your question failed.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

No person was created.
Checkmate. Your question failed.

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying that everyone one of us exists without being created?

So you currently have seven billion answers to my OP?

 

[LACanuck]

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying that everyone one of us exists without being created?

So you currently have seven billion answers to my OP?

Well, without a more precise definition of what you mean by 'create' it's really hard to say for certain. Does creation include the concept of 'intent'? Does the being doing the creating need to be sentient? If so, then how would you characterize exactly what comprises sentience? Are only humans capable of being 'created'? What about animals? Fish? Bacteria? Viruses? So many edge cases to consider.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course not, science deals with many more dimensions than that. Some branches of string theory with as many as 26 dimensions, and the currently popular M-theory with 11 dimensions.

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?

 

[LACanuck]

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?

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.