God and Carl Sagan

[rational experiences]

. . . or simply the nature of the Quantum World and Natural Laws first, but not actually 'first', but for an infinite eternal reality, and nothing first.

How is nothing first, it would be last.

Everything that is self present is one, owned as one, is existing in one format of diverse existence, as the theme teaching about One, to be conscious and not be a Destroyer.

You ask a scientist, who is just a human being a human. Living their bio life just after the presence of an ape body as an evolved being. The ape not being the evolved being, a human does comparisons to the ape and says, I am the evolved and higher being in self presence. Yet does non stop comparing.

For a natural life and natural human I find that situation strange.

A human being male looks at fusion mass on Earth. Says to self, I can attack that naturally created and existing body, convert it and get energy. However says I have to design a machination to achieve it...and the machination owner of the same cold fused particles, but are minerals, get melted first.

Which about explains the theme why water mass was split off the ground for water mass in natural history owned the presence of nuclear chemicals remaining existing and minerals.

You claim that you can take that mass back as close to the state of nothing, yet a form of radiation higher active sludge, burnt beyond natural recognition exists afterwards.

Which is the conscious information that a conscious science minds talks and compares to space as nothing and "something else in space".

If you applied the use of human existing, human thinking, human being a scientist, human doing Earth experiments first and then later claiming knowledge about nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

How is nothing first, it would be last.

Everything that is self present is one, owned as one, is existing in one format of diverse existence, as the theme teaching about One, to be conscious and not be a Destroyer.

You ask a scientist, who is just a human being a human. Living their bio life just after the presence of an ape body as an evolved being. The ape not being the evolved being, a human does comparisons to the ape and says, I am the evolved and higher being in self presence. Yet does non stop comparing.

For a natural life and natural human I find that situation strange.

A human being male looks at fusion mass on Earth. Says to self, I can attack that naturally created and existing body, convert it and get energy. However says I have to design a machination to achieve it...and the machination owner of the same cold fused particles, but are minerals, get melted first.

Which about explains the theme why water mass was split off the ground for water mass in natural history owned the presence of nuclear chemicals remaining existing and minerals.

You claim that you can take that mass back as close to the state of nothing, yet a form of radiation higher active sludge, burnt beyond natural recognition exists afterwards.

Which is the conscious information that a conscious science minds talks and compares to space as nothing and "something else in space".

If you applied the use of human existing, human thinking, human being a scientist, human doing Earth experiments first and then later claiming knowledge about nothing.

Does not respond to my post coherently considering the objective evidence of the nature of the cosmos as 'all there is.'

 

[rational experiences]

Does not respond to my post coherently considering the objective evidence of the nature of the cosmos as 'all there is.'

Objective how? A human being is only a near water based bio life as compared to the cosmos, as the self/body and mind doing all comparisons.

What would you know about your own self as that form of consciousness as compared to what state causes your life to not exist. Eventually the bio life bone owner, chemical owner by chemistry as compare to "everything else?"

The answer is just about nothing. Not quite nothing, but nearly nothing.

As consciousness is totally aware of its owned bio death and all reasonings about non bio presence, even to the extent of the destruction of its skeletal bones....all science data inferred taught first as conscious used equative reasoning against self presence.

For the nothing by determined separation expression is not discussing any other form of body existing in any status, which includes your own self, on a God O stone planet, with a heavenly body. Those thoughts do not own representation about any state present and natural.

 

[shunyadragon]

Objective how? A human being is only a near water based bio life as compared to the cosmos, as the self/body and mind doing all comparisons.

What would you know about your own self as that form of consciousness as compared to what state causes your life to not exist. Eventually the bio life bone owner, chemical owner by chemistry as compare to "everything else?"

The answer is just about nothing. Not quite nothing, but nearly nothing.

As consciousness is totally aware of its owned bio death and all reasonings about non bio presence, even to the extent of the destruction of its skeletal bones....all science data inferred taught first as conscious used equative reasoning against self presence.

For the nothing by determined separation expression is not discussing any other form of body existing in any status, which includes your own self, on a God O stone planet, with a heavenly body. Those thoughts do not own representation about any state present and natural.

Does not respond to my post coherently considering the objective evidence of the nature of the cosmos as 'all there is.'

 

[rational experiences]

Does not respond to my post coherently considering the objective evidence of the nature of the cosmos as 'all there is.'

In the objective Nature of all there is....there is a male standing on a pre existing created Earth planet body pretending as he does that it does not exist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In the objective Nature of all there is....there is a male standing on a pre existing created Earth planet body pretending as he does that it does not exist.

It's much simpler to say...
In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.

 

[rational experiences]

It's much simpler to say...
In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.

Change of the tree Nature that once lived hovering above the ground, and you become life sacrificed by the Nature of the tree as evidence to self. Yet the victim was never the Satanist/scientist.

humans who look like trees - Bing images

How much our brother loves us.

 

[rational experiences]

RAdiation imaged feed back cuts/burns the images by metallic attack into all natural forms, why life changes and you begin to see sexual images everywhere you look.

Why the Abomination of the Nature of the Holy Mother on Earth is real in a sexual "caused" reality of observing the truth of what science does, as made in the Image of self....human.

 

[viole]

Carl Sagan's explanation here of how we perceive things that are beyond our own dimension is useful for explaining how we perceive God.

In the 2D vs. 3D example, God is akin to the apple and we are the square.

In the 3D vs. 4D example, God is akin to the tesseract. Just as we can see a "shadow" of a tesseract but have no way of comprehending the tesseract itself, so it is for our perception of God - our experience and understanding of him is merely a "shadow" of what he truly is.

Too often, atheists try to argue against God by appealing to the rules of our own dimension, but this is as misguided as the square trying to argue that the apple cannot exist.

Hopefully this helps some of you gain a more accurate conception of what we're discussing when we discuss God.

Well, of course we could use the same arguments to justify the existence of invisible (only in euclidean three dimensional space) garden fairies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[izzy88]

Well, of course we could use the same arguments to justify the existence of invisible (only in euclidean three dimensional space) garden fairies.

Ciao

- viole

This isn't an argument; it's an analogy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Conversely one could argue that it's as misguided to ascribe a higher dimensional beings with human characteristics like love or wrath, or even an interest in what happens in our personal lives at all, if it even could perceive our dimension in any reasonable way (just like we can't actually perceive dimensions 'lower' than ours, only conceptualize them.)

Sometimes I think with the necessity of this kind of being to be fundamentally beyond measure to maintain its image of power and mystery, people are quick to about face and *give* it measures. Have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

But to expand on the analogy further it would be interesting to theorize a higher dimensional being which can only interract with lower dimensional beings by altering itself to coincide with the dimension it's interracting with. Making it just as limited as anything else in that dimension for the duration in which it wants to impact it. Maybe even manifesting different bits of itself for individual jobs depending on the intended goal going in, leading to an overall feel of a sort of henotheism.
Basically, you can use the analogy to construct whatever god concept you want.

That's actually a pretty good point that we cannot perceive two dimensional life, which arguably leads to speculation that four-dimensional life cannot perceive ours. That is assuming there's actually something called interdimensional life.

I actually understand why Neil deGrasse Tyson said this topic is more of a philosophical matter and not as much a science matter.

 

[viole]

This isn't an argument; it's an analogy.

Ok, same analogy then,

Ciao

- viole

 

[izzy88]

Ok, same analogy then,

Ciao

- viole

Okay, what's your point?

 

[izzy88]

we cannot perceive two dimensional life, which arguably leads to speculation that four-dimensional life cannot perceive ours

I don't know what you mean by "two dimensional life" - what are you referring to?
We see two dimensional things all the time, though. This screen you're looking at right now is showing you two dimensional things.

 

[viole]

Okay, what's your point?

My point? Isn't that obvious?

You can explain everything, by invoking things like hidden dimensions and such.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't know what you mean by "two dimensional life" - what are you referring to?
We see two dimensional things all the time, though. This screen you're looking at right now is showing you two dimensional things.

Actually when you think about it, it's still three dimensional going down to the micro atomic level. It has to do with the traversal of time and space and I'm not sure if there is anything in the universe that is restricted to two dimensions in the same way we are restricted to three dimensions.

 

[izzy88]

Actually when you think about it, it's still three dimensional going down to the micro atomic level.

Isn't it actually non-dimensional at the micro atomic level?

 

[izzy88]

My point? Isn't that obvious

The only thing that's obvious is that you don't understand the OP.

You can explain everything, by invoking things like hidden dimensions and such.

I'll say one more time: it's an analogy.

 

[ratiocinator]

Carl Sagan's explanation here of how we perceive things that are beyond our own dimension is useful for explaining how we perceive God.

In the 2D vs. 3D example, God is akin to the apple and we are the square.

In the 3D vs. 4D example, God is akin to the tesseract. Just as we can see a "shadow" of a tesseract but have no way of comprehending the tesseract itself, so it is for our perception of God - our experience and understanding of him is merely a "shadow" of what he truly is.

Too often, atheists try to argue against God by appealing to the rules of our own dimension, but this is as misguided as the square trying to argue that the apple cannot exist.

Hopefully this helps some of you gain a more accurate conception of what we're discussing when we discuss God.

Seems like a very odd analogy to me. We understand the rules (geometry) of 4-dimensional Euclidean space (which is what Sagan is talking about) very well (any number of dimensions, actually). If you want an analogy that operates on different rules to those we understand, then this fails miserably. Also, we don't live in a dimension ("rules of our own dimension") - that's a totally different (and inaccurate) usage of the word.

No idea what you mean by atheists' arguments against (any of the many ideas of) "God" using the rules we know about but there are arguments for "God" that rely on the rules we 'know' and applying them outside of their scope (many versions of first cause, for example).

 

[viole]

The only thing that's obvious is that you don't understand the OP.



I'll say one more time: it's an analogy.

Yes, and this analogy can be used to explain why we should not expect to have physical evidence of Superman, Zeus, God, the Blue Fairy or any other figment of our imagination.

So, for example, the Blue fairy is the apple and the physical world is the orange. It is like them living in separate dimensions, and that is why we should not expect to see blue fairies in the physical world. You see afairists: that should give you a better understanding of how we perceive fairies


Ciao

- viole