Can god banish himself to hell?

Originally posted by Agerg
a hypothetical circle that can talk (think mechanics of creating sound) and perceive the world around it...would be a round and flat 3D object KM...you assign to this object only 2 dimensions and show us how it cannot understand a 3d sphere...as far as a circle and a sphere goes, a cicle hasn't got the capacity to understand nothing, your analogy does not apply to us 3D objects not understanding a fourth dimension

Are you serious? Do you think I can be so easily distracted by such an obvious tactic?

Like all analogies they work in some ways and not on others. By your reasoning I could argue that wormholes couldn't possibly exist because space is not full of top soil!!!! But of course you know this don't you. You can see I've made a half decent point about how an unknown dimension could look very wierd from the next dimension down and you want to throw in a red herring and take me into a cul de sac.

Either take the story in the spirit it is written or don't bother. If you don't want to engage with the issues the story brings up then just say so . Otherwise I don't have time for your evasive games of pedantry. The analogy works if you just give it half a chance ...but of course you don't want to do that now do you.....?.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you serious? Do you think I can be so easily distracted by such an obvious tactic?

Like all analogies they work in some ways and not on others. By your reasoning I could argue that wormholes couldn't possibly exist because space is not full of top soil!!!! But of course you know this don't you. You can see I've made a half decent point about u just give it half a chance ...but of course you don't want to do that now do you.....?.

KM...what you don't get is that stating there is another dimension, a spiritual one is a massive assertion! (that you or others don't even justify let alone explain (lets all start devising explanations for things we don't understand by alluding to magic pots))...You have done a truly wonderful job of explaining to us via analogy how something constrained to dimensions that only specifies it's position in the universe via 2 axes is different to one who's position is specified by 3 (despite the fact that in your explantation the object so full of curiosity was in fact also 3D too!)...this analogy does not apply to how we objects whose location in the universe is specified in 3 dimensions, cannot understand a 4th dimension that has sod all to do with specifying location/orientation etc...and is instead a spiritual one (or whatever)

a domino analogy works well for describing how a line of people can pass on a message from on end to the other...it does not apply to how one person upon hearing a message can then pass this message onwards along a line where the last person hearing it then runs to the middle of the line and passes on a different message back to the start...The domino analogy as it stands right now falls way short here.

Originally posted by Agerg
KM...what you don't get is that stating there is another dimension, a spiritual one is a massive assertion! (that you or others don't even justify let alone explain (lets all start devising explanations for things we don't understand by alluding to magic pots))...You have done a truly wonderful job of explaining to us via analogy how something constrain ...[text shortened]... age back to the start...The domino analogy as it stands right now falls way short here.[/i]

My first response is what's with the dominos? , are you talking about the other thread (Dr Who and the probability of impossibility)? If you are mentioning this thread you are mixing up two arguments. If not then I fail to see why you are talking dominos while we are debating spheres and circles.

Originally posted by Agerg
KM...what you don't get is that stating there is another dimension, a spiritual one is a massive assertion! (that you or others don't even justify let alone explain (lets all start devising explanations for things we don't understand by alluding to magic pots))...You have done a truly wonderful job of explaining to us via analogy how something constrain ...[text shortened]... age back to the start...The domino analogy as it stands right now falls way short here.[/i]

what you don't get is that stating there is another dimension, a spiritual one is a massive assertion! AGERG

...and what you have missed is that my assertion is a hypothetical one only in relation to the issue of how the dimension of eternity might appear quite wierd to us because we are trapped in the dimension of time.

You think I put this forward as "proof" that there IS a dimension of eternity??? No sir. All I am trying to show is that it's very rational to expect eternity , if it existed , to seem quite strange to us. This is a simple counter to those who say "but God , if he exists, can't know what we are going to do in the future if we have free choice". They claim this would be contradictory and illogical , and in a sense they are right. It IS contradictory from a space/time perspective , just as it is contradictory from a circle's perspective for a sphere to be many circles simultaneously.

Quantum Physicists are always warning us that when we probe the frontiers of existence to try and understand the quantum world then we need to think outside what our normal logic would expect. I see no reason why the same might apply to God and eternity. If eternity did exist I think it highly unlikely that we would be able to understand it fully using the normal dimensional logic of the known universe , since eternity by definition would be beyond time and space itself.

Most analogies that I know of usually have many limits to the way they work and have many ways that they don't apply. So...because you are biased against the idea of any theist making any kind of sense at all and seemingly committed to the cause of "let's make theism look strupid magic" .... you focus on the many ways in which the analogy doesn't work (hardly the work of a genius!!) and omit the one specific way it does work , which is to show that from a limited dimension an extra dimension can be perceived to have some strange properties. This is all it shows , nothing more , nothing less...the rest is in your imagination.

Originally posted by Agerg
KM...what you don't get is that stating there is another dimension, a spiritual one is a massive assertion! (that you or others don't even justify let alone explain (lets all start devising explanations for things we don't understand by alluding to magic pots))...You have done a truly wonderful job of explaining to us via analogy how something constrain ...[text shortened]... age back to the start...The domino analogy as it stands right now falls way short here.[/i]

this analogy does not apply to how we objects whose location in the universe is specified in 3 dimensions, cannot understand a 4th dimension that has sod all to do with specifying location/orientation etc...and is instead a spiritual one (or whatever)AGERG

To be precise , shouldn't that be 4 dimensions and a 5th dimension ? Or did you forget about the 4th dimension of time? Let's at least get that bit right! (and before you say it...yes I am aware that a circle with only 2 dimensions cannot actually exist...let alone talk....zzzz)

Originally posted by knightmeister
this analogy does not apply to how we objects whose location in the universe is specified in 3 dimensions, cannot understand a 4th dimension that has sod all to do with specifying location/orientation etc...and is instead a spiritual one (or whatever)AGERG

To be precise , shouldn't that be 4 dimensions and a 5th dimension ? Or did you forget about am aware that a circle with only 2 dimensions cannot actually exist...let alone talk....zzzz)

you have a habit for mis-understanding me...what is the difference between what I said: a 4th dimension, and what you think i meant: The 4th dimension that isn't time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
My first response is what's with the dominos? , are you talking about the other thread (Dr Who and the probability of impossibility)? If you are mentioning this thread you are mixing up two arguments. If not then I fail to see why you are talking dominos while we are debating spheres and circles.

I used the domino analogy with a situation where it applies, and a situation where it doesn't. My reason for this was to drive home the point that your analogy is incorrect

Originally posted by knightmeister
what you don't get is that stating there is another dimension, a spiritual one is a massive assertion! AGERG

...and what you have missed is that my assertion is a hypothetical one only in relation to the issue of how the dimension of eternity might appear quite wierd to us because we are trapped in the dimension of time.

You think I put this for ...[text shortened]... is is all it shows , nothing more , nothing less...the rest is in your imagination.

you countered: magic see? with something like: (and not word for word quoting here) [/i] no just magic and circles[/i]...you feel justified to evade any points you choose with this analogy...that is why I challenge it.





(I have not got time to give a longer reply to this post today)

Originally posted by Agerg
you countered: [b] magic see? with something like: (and not word for word quoting here) [/i] no just magic and circles[/i]...you feel justified to evade any points you choose with this analogy...that is why I challenge it.





(I have not got time to give a longer reply to this post today)[/b]

Ok , to be fair I was winding scotty up a bit. But I have had Atheists claim I am using magic arguments which is curious since the sphere and circle is quite mathematical in many ways.

Originally posted by Agerg
you have a habit for mis-understanding me...what is the difference between what I said: [b]a 4th dimension, and what you think i meant: The 4th dimension that isn't time?[/b]

I did not misrepresent you ....the following statement of yours is false...
"this analogy does not apply to how we objects whose location in the universe is specified in 3 dimensions" AGERG

Our location in the universe is specified in 4 dimensions not 3 since the universe has 4 dimensions (including time). If you are refering to the dimension of time why not just say so? If you are not then what is this 4th dimension you speak of? You need to clarify YOUR thinking on dimensions before you start taking apart mine.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I did not misrepresent you ....the following statement of yours is false...
"this analogy does not apply to how we objects whose location in the universe is specified in 3 dimensions" AGERG

Our location in the universe is specified in 4 dimensions not 3 since the universe has 4 dimensions (including time). If you are refering to the dimension of ...[text shortened]... speak of? You need to clarify YOUR thinking on dimensions before you start taking apart mine.

Time doesn't specify position, orientation or size etc...it specifies the period of separation between one event and another. (where time of event A >= time of event B)...Our perception of time, and mass etc... may be altered (noticebly or not) by the speeds we travel but where something exists relative to a certain point at event A needs only to be described by way of the 3 cartesian axes.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , to be fair I was winding scotty up a bit. But I have had Atheists claim I am using magic arguments which is curious since the sphere and circle is quite mathematical in many ways.

Ok , to be fair I was winding scotty up a bit. But I have had Atheists claim I am using magic arguments which is curious since the sphere and circle is quite mathematical in many ways.

But the analogy/story was in some ways a magic argument...(talking circles don't exist!) (nicely written story perhaps but still magic), and with regards to such things as circles, spheres, triangles etc it isn't exactly mathematical either: a circle stops being an object for which ALL points on a plane are equi-distant from it's centre the moment it gains the ability to make sound and perceive the world around it.

I get slated right left and centre for being pedantic KM...I'm not personally attacking you (this all seems to be getting heated), I just fight my own corner by looking for all the ways that things don't work.

Originally posted by Agerg
Time doesn't specify position, orientation or size etc...it specifies the period of separation between one event and another. (where time of event A >= time of event B)...Our perception of time, and mass etc... may be altered (noticebly or not) by the speeds we travel but where something exists relative to a certain point at event A needs only to be described by way of the 3 cartesian axes.

Something cannot be said to exist at point A because in time point A is not static . The earth for example is not in the same place in the universe as it was a million years ago so to locate it accurately you need to specify the time as well as location. You can also point to the night sky and locate a star in a particular 3 dimensional space in the universe but some of the stars in the sky don't exist any more so all we are seeing is the light that came from them 1000's of light years ago. You need the dimension of time to even say which one of them exist let alone locate them! On a cosmic level the use of time as a way of locating the position of things is built into the very phrase "light years". In one sense we cannot even locate the sun in the sky , all we can say is that is where the sun WAS 8 minutes ago.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Ok , to be fair I was winding scotty up a bit. But I have had Atheists claim I am using magic arguments which is curious since the sphere and circle is quite mathematical in many ways.

But the analogy/story was in some ways a magic argument...(talking circles don't exist!) (nicely written story perhaps but still magic), and with regards to such thing ...[text shortened]... ing heated), I just fight my own corner by looking for all the ways that things don't work.[/b]

I just fight my own corner by looking for all the ways that things don't work. AGERG

I am not personally offended my friend. How can I be offended by a computer screen? I am pointing out to you that if you look for all the ways that something doesn't work then that's precisely what you will find. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. If you said " Ah , yes ...I can see how a circle might find a sphere pretty strange to comprehend and how certain dimensions of a sphere could appear perplexing to a circle " I would not be about to jump on you and say "aha...I have proved God and eternity!!!" because I would still have a lifetime's worth of objections to respond to.

Your objections seem pedantic because I get the feeling that if Dawkins was using a similar analogy technique to describe an idea of his you might be less critical. Infact he uses the idea of the "selfish" gene , I could argue that it doesn't work because genes have to have a mind and a will to be "selfish". But I accept it because I can see what he is saying , even though his world view is threatening to me. I get the impression that whatever analogy I came up with you would find a way of picking holes in it. I understand this because I guess you have to do this...... , you come to the analogy with a loaded dice.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Something cannot be said to exist at point A because in time point A is not static . The earth for example is not in the same place in the universe as it was a million years ago so to locate it accurately you need to specify the time as well as location. You can also point to the night sky and locate a star in a particular 3 dimensional space in the even locate the sun in the sky , all we can say is that is where the sun WAS 8 minutes ago.

Something cannot be said to exist at point A because in time point A is not static . The earth for example is not in the same place in the universe as it was a million years ago so to locate it accurately you need to specify the time as well as location.

(I anticipated this particular counter but for brevity, didn't build it into my reply)

I disagree with your conclusion...yes the earth does rotate...but if i am point A, and my position is specified with respect to point B, then in this self contained system if my position shifts as a result of the earth's rotation...so does B's!...therefore my position from B need not be given in any other dimensions other than x,y,and z to know where I am...If I am not within this self contained system (ie: I'm in a different one) then I need only specify a point of reference from some other point that is static with in my own system (I could let me be this point of reference C) such that I can then for any given moment determine the position of another object D with respect to C.

You can also point to the night sky and locate a star in a particular 3 dimensional space in the universe but some of the stars in the sky don't exist any more so all we are seeing is the light that came from them 1000's of light years ago.

Nice try but if the million of years old light from such and such a star just reaches our eye now then we can say that at event E (where E is an event (the star not suddenly not existing perhaps) that took place millions of years ago), there was a point P who's position with respect to a point Q could be specified as ix, jy, and kz (it doesn't matter where P or Q is now...plug in units for i, j, and k)

You need the dimension of time to even say which one of them exist let alone locate them! On a cosmic level the use of time as a way of locating the position of things is built into the very phrase "light years". In one sense we cannot even locate the sun in the sky , all we can say is that is where the sun WAS 8 minutes ago.

Time is not needed to measure the distance of a light year (or anything else)...we define a light year to be the distance light would travel in one year such that if we now let this unit of measurement of distance = x then given that the speed of light is loosely given as 300,000km/s, we can say that x is roughly equal to (60^2)*24*365*300000 km...time is redundant here