Can god banish himself to hell?

Originally posted by Agerg
I really couldn't care a damn for this argument whether I can find something or not...time specifies when...up, down, left, right, in front, behind of specifies where.

Are circles only [b]sometimes round???[/b]

Yes ,A real circle that exists in the universe can only be round sometimes because the universe doesn't stay still. An imaginary mathematical circle is always round.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes ,A real circle that exists in the universe can only be round sometimes because the universe doesn't stay still. An imaginary mathematical circle is always round.

right...now define a circle (not a physically round thing), and tell me where time is important! [i](I suppose some wise-ass will drop in with the point that a circle *can* be defined parametrically in terms of another variable (t perhaps) and then go on further to say that the circle requires that t be in a certain range...like a time for when it is a circle and then when it isn't...to this I say that the distance of x1 from x(axis) is merely the cosine of t, and so on for y being the sine of t...with regards to positions of all the points that lie on a circle time is still not required)😞

Originally posted by Agerg
grrr...so if someone says "i'm behind you" that their location could not possibly be ascertained without knowing what time it is???

I grow weary of this silliness...you've had me going at great lengths trying to show you that x,y,z defines where something is...t defines when it is...you believe in Doctor Who and Back to the Future stuff, I don't.

and all this because you think a circle's or sphere's roundness is in someway linked to time!!!

and all this because you think a circle's or sphere's roundness is in someway linked to time!!!

I think nothing of the sort . I think the relationship between a circle and a sphere is analogous to the relationship between time and eternity. A sphere has aspects to it that are not possible for a circle. It has nothing to do with roundness ...I could have chosen a square and cube but a square and a pyramid would be more interesting.

Originally posted by knightmeister
and all this because you think a circle's or sphere's roundness is in someway linked to time!!!

I think nothing of the sort . I think the relationship between a circle and a sphere is analogous to the relationship between time and eternity. A sphere has aspects to it that are not possible for a circle. It has nothing to do with roundness ...I could have chosen a square and cube but a square and a pyramid would be more interesting.

Yes you could have chosen squares and circles, squares and pyramids, triangles and pyramids, pentagons and dodecahedrons, and so on...I would have drawn attention to the same thing in all of them...They differ by the amount af axes needed to define where their points exist in a certain space...these dimensions are homogeneous. Spiritual dimensions, time, and the cartesian axes are not of the same type...that is why I say your analogy is incorrect

Originally posted by Agerg
Yes you could have chosen squares and circles, squares and pyramids, triangles and pyramids, pentagons and dodecahedrons, and so on...I would have drawn attention to the same thing in all of them...They differ by the amount af axes needed to define where their points exist in a certain space...these dimensions are homogeneous. Spiritual dimensions, time, and the cartesian axes are not of the same type...that is why I say your analogy is incorrect

What do you know of spiritual dimensions then? How can you say that my analogy does not work on this basis if you don't even think this dimension exists! It's a bit you like you saying "no that can't be a dreenogoch ...because dreenogoches aren't like that " whilst at the same time saying you don't know or recognise what a dreenogoch is.

Can you give me a better analogy that does work?

Originally posted by knightmeister
What do you know of spiritual dimensions then? How can you say that my analogy does not work on this basis if you don't even think this dimension exists! It's a bit you like you saying "no that can't be a dreenogoch ...because dreenogoches aren't like that " whilst at the same time saying you don't know or recognise what a dreenogoch is.

Can you give me a better analogy that does work?

What do you know of spiritual dimensions then? How can you say that my analogy does not work on this basis if you don't even think this dimension exists! It's a bit you like you saying "no that can't be a dreenogoch ...because dreenogoches aren't like that " whilst at the same time saying you don't know or recognise what a dreenogoch is.

I know what it isn't...it isn't a dimension that specifies position like the three cartesian co-ordinates.

Can you give me a better analogy that does work?

Not really...I see no truth in a spiritual dimension!

(though I will keep em peeled for someone describing it as a dimension we already understand/experience but then assigning to it some mystical properties without explaining or justifying these as well...too often these kind of definitions are accepted as valid when in reality they are totally fallacious)

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]What do you know of spiritual dimensions then? How can you say that my analogy does not work on this basis if you don't even think this dimension exists! It's a bit you like you saying "no that can't be a dreenogoch ...because dreenogoches aren't like that " whilst at the same time saying you don't know or recognise what a dreenogoch is.

I know what ...[text shortened]... d of definitions are accepted as valid when in reality they are totally fallacious)[/i][/b]

I know what it isn't...it isn't a dimension that specifies position like the three cartesian co-ordinates.AGERG

However , since I am attempting to describe the peculiarities of something that predates and supercedes the known universe it's unlikely that I would be able to find any analogy that you would find acceptable. I could come up with the most brilliant analogy possible and you would still be likely to say I wasn't comparing "like with like".

However , many analogies do not require that it's components are the same as the thing they attempt to describe. Brian Greene uses the comparison with strings in string theory (or Grand Unification Theory) and he knows that he is not comparing like for like , but of course he also knows that analogies aren't supposed to do this. They are supposed to paint a picture or reflect something of the essence of an idea. An analogy presumes a certain amount of imagination on the part of the receiver.

If you treat analogies in this way all the time I'm surprised if you often accept any of them! It's often my experience that Atheists (consciously and unconsciously) step up a couple of gears in their pedantry when a religious idea is placed in front of them and it's often incongruent with their stance on other issues.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]What do you know of spiritual dimensions then? How can you say that my analogy does not work on this basis if you don't even think this dimension exists! It's a bit you like you saying "no that can't be a dreenogoch ...because dreenogoches aren't like that " whilst at the same time saying you don't know or recognise what a dreenogoch is.

I know what ...[text shortened]... d of definitions are accepted as valid when in reality they are totally fallacious)[/i][/b]

Not really...I see no truth in a spiritual dimension!

(though I will keep em peeled for someone describing it as a dimension we already understand/experience but then assigning to it some mystical properties without explaining or justifying these as well...too often these kind of definitions are accepted as valid when in reality they are totally fallacious)AGERG

Now Agerg , there's no need to get all twitchy about this . I'm not burning incense sticks by my keyboard !

I think you might find that the original Doctor Who thread talked exclusively about the idea of eternity but did not mention "spiritual" dimensions. Eternity could be anything really although in reference to God it probabaly would be.The Dr Who series was mainly about how what we take for granted about time (like knowing what Columbus was about to do before he does it whilst at the same time it not being set in stone) only makes sense if time is the highest dimension. If you introduce another dimension then things that seem paradoxical might be possible. Just as the sphere can do stuff the circle finds wierd.

The point is not about spirituality but about eternity. It could even be about a 5th dimension beyond space/time (Brian Greene posits 12 I think and he's not what I would call a mystic) If such a dimension exists (remember this is not a proof for God) then one might expect the relationship between the 4th and 5th dimensions to be similar to the relationship between , say, the 2nd and 3rd dimensions (sphere/circle).

If you live in a lower dimension then the next dimension up (that you don't live in) could seem to have some quite wierd properties that wouldn't make sense in your dimensional realm. This seems to me self evident and IS described in the story of the sphere and circle.

So tell me how much chopping and changing do I need to do to make this analogy even faintly acceptable to you ? Let's take eternity out of it , how about just a 5th dimesnion?