God and Carl Sagan

[izzy88]

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. Checkmate, afairists: that should give you a better understanding of how we perceive fairies


Ciao

- viole

Whether deliberately or not, you're still misrepresenting the OP and arguing against a straw man, and since you've clearly got your mind made up that I was trying to prove something - rather than just presenting an analogy that helps us make a bit more sense of our perception of God - I'm going to stop discussing this with you.

Stop trying to turn every single mention of God into an argument.

 

[izzy88]

Seems like a very odd analogy to me.

That's because you - like many others here - are taking it literally.

God is not actually a 4th dimensional being - he is not a being at all, and does not exist in any physical dimension.

The point of the analogy was simply that what we perceive of God's existence or nature is only a shadow of his true existence or nature, because of the limits of our perception.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's because you - like many others here - are taking it literally.

Not really, just struggling to see any similarities at all the would make it a useful analogy to what you seem to be saying.

The point of the analogy was simply that what we perceive of God's existence or nature is only a shadow of his true existence or nature, because of the limits of our perception.

What exactly to you think we actually do perceive of your favourite version of "God"...?

God is not actually a 4th dimensional being - he is not a being at all, and does not exist in any physical dimension.

I know a few theists who'd give you an argument about "God" not being a being, and you're again using "dimension" in the inaccurate (tacky sci-fi) way, which further undermines any analogy as you don't seem to get the concept of a dimension yourself.

 

[izzy88]

Not really, just struggling to see any similarities at all the would make it a useful analogy to what you seem to be saying

Yes, you are, and I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Not totally. It is dimensional on the quanta scale. It does lack the teme/space and gravity of the Macro World.

 

[izzy88]

It is dimensional on the quanta scale.

Can you elaborate? How can something without spacial existence be dimensional in the sense we're discussing here - temporally?

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you elaborate? How can something without spacial existence be dimensional in the sense we're discussing here - temporally?

The sub-atomic particle themselves at the quanta level have dimensions. Most have mass, but photons are expressed as energy without mass. As far as time at the Quantum level it has a theoretical limit of Planck time. Planck time is measurable by chronon, which is large enough to be measured..

Time is continuous at the quants level of Quantum particles, but only at the incremental periods at the quanta level. It is not continuous beyond this as in the macro time/space level.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

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.

I partly agree with this. As God is infinitely greater, in every way, in being, in intelligence, in goodness, in justice, in mercy, in personality, in persona, etc. It makes sense that we will learn God as we get to know God. I call this spiritual growth. This is why some know God less than others. The Holy Spirit teaches all things. But as i said God is infinitely greater so we will never stop learning God even in eternity. Isnt that beautiful.

 

[rational experiences]

A man theist was personally consciously once a higher human man by behaviours. His humans spirituality. His consciousness.

His brothers living that expressive humanity now naturally prove it real. Just human.

If he hadn't self idolated being more spiritual than his brother we'd have no problem accepting today that we lost humans natural consciousness.

When science conjured image by gods mass change they began self Idolating who they once were. Recorded first...biology mind physical changed.

Have in fact been Idolating their origin man self.

 

[zacariah88]

Carl Sagan is a genius do like watching his videos.

 

[shunyadragon]

I partly agree with this. As God is infinitely greater, in every way, in being, in intelligence, in goodness, in justice, in mercy, in personality, in persona, etc. It makes sense that we will learn God as we get to know God. I call this spiritual growth. This is why some know God less than others. The Holy Spirit teaches all things. But as i said God is infinitely greater so we will never stop learning God even in eternity. Isn't that beautiful.

I prefer to consider the 'Source' some call God(s) from a Universalist (not UU) approach where all of the religions in the history of fallible humanity have diverse and variable beliefs in God(s), which I view without judgement as to who knows God better than others. Saying 'some may know God less than others;' begs the question as to whether one view of God is greater than other fallible human beliefs in God or Gods. The concept of 'the Holy Spirit teaches[ is likewise open to question, because of the diverse and conflicting beliefs as to what the 'Holy Spirit' teaches.
In the Universalist perspective we can understand the physical world with reasonable objectivity, and get an understanding of the nature of the diversity of human beliefs as they are, but recognize that beliefs themselves are beyond our physical world and are subjective and anecdotal on nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

My interest in Carl Sagan is that his science is sound and accurate, and he justifiably rejects most of the Christian Creationist views toward science, history of life including evolution and the physical history of the universe.

From the 'Universalist' view the different religions knowledge of God reflects the culture that their religion originated. In reality IF God exists this does not reflect knowledge of God, but fallible human knowledge of the attributes of God and not God. Also, the Nature of our physical existence as viewed by science would also be a human view of the attributes of God.

 

[wellwisher]

The 2D people could see the 2D image of the apple. They couldn't see the whole apple but they could at least see the 2D section of the apple where it intersected their plane. There was physical 2D evidence of the apple allowing the 2D person to accept the existence of the apple. So where is the physical evidence for God?

Your analogy is not complete. We have five senses and your analogy bases its assessment on only one sense; sense of sight. For example, below are three 3-D images to the eyes. None will not pass a second sense, touch test, since all are illusions of 3-D in 2-D space.

Touch the screen and see if the 3-D image of the apple, in 2-D space, gives us the same touch information as a genuine 3-D apple in 3-D space. The illusion will satisfy the eyes. However, a genuine apple in 3-D space needs the sense of touch. This visual data lack is why God is often portray with esoteric explanation; attempt to include other senses; intuitive feeling/touch.

In the picture of the apple, the 3-D illusion is accomplished though highlights and shadowing, where highlights are the data that is true, while the shadowing is an emotional appeal to negative emotions; denial of truth in other theories. This type of illusion tells me Evolution may quite well be a spatial illusion, since it needs negativity against religion, for a 3-D shadow affect, to compensate for gaps in its own truth; missing links. The over dependence on casino science makes it less than rational so emotion is already there. There is no such shadow conflict between say religion and chemistry, to the degree of religion and evolution.

The second and third pictures show another type of spatial illusion, which also cannot exist in a genuine 3-D theory universe. One cannot have a staircase, that forms a closed loop, that always goes up (or down). In the case of evolution, water, which is the only fixed variable, that was there at all steps of abiogenesis and all steps evolution and which is still there, is mysteriously left out of the step by step analysis, even though it did and still physically touches all the organics in life.

If you do not stress this singular non changing anchor variable, your theory will up in the air, forever; spatial illusion. Evolution, to compensate, has this need to dig a hole for religion, so it can create the illusion of rising above, by placing a less than science adversary in a hole. This behavior is not found everywhere else in science; shadowing to create an illusion of 3-D.

I am amazed science cannot see this. But then again, Einstein showed us that sight is relative to reference POV, and is not absolute. There are relativity tricks that can fool the eyes. You need another sense for checks and balance, if a 3-D theory is important to science, and a spatial illusion is just not longer good enough, anymore.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

I can help Dr Sagan see deeper than he is with my theory of connected space-time, versus separated space and time. The latter is composed of space that is independent of time and time that is independent of space.

If we could move in space, independent of time, we would be omnipresent. We can move around the universe in zero time since position is not time dependent; warp drive. This is a classic attribute of God. Separated space and time is the math needed to express God. It only requires a simple change in our current view of space and time. Connected space-time places limits on space and time, making space-time a subset of the much larger set, where time and space are not attached.

As an analogy, say you were handcuffed to your mate. Your were role playing last night and lost the key. You decide to clean the house to find the key. The constraint, created by the handcuffs; space-time, will place limits on how the two of you, can move about in your home space and time while cleaning. You will always need to stay together, to do one thing at a time, or maybe two things in the smaller space volumes; clean and dry the dishes.

Luckily for the two of you, you find the key in the fridge next to the wine. You take off the handcuffs and decide that cleaning the house is still a good idea. Once separated, the possibilities for cleaning the house, are now much more flexible. I can clean upstairs, while my mate cleans downstairs, so we are not in each other's way. God, by being omnipresent, does not have to be in one spot at a time, handcuffed to space-time, to suit the science of space-time. One needs to model this extra flexibility, differently.

If we combined connected space-time; handcuffs, with separated space and separated time; no handcuffs, this would be like two couples cleaning a vacation home, looking for the key to the handcuffs that bind the other couple. Now more options for finding the key can also open up. Having the other couple in two places at once is now possible even of not so for the handcuffs couple. This is an easy way to model the quantum universe and the macro universe, at the same time, both working together, interacting.

For example, all forces of nature will create an acceleration, which is d/t/t or two parts time and one part space. This can be modeled as space-time, plus separated time. We have the limits of space-time, as well as a time variable that is not dependent on space. The law of physics should be the same in all references, with each unique reference, adjusting theses laws to its unique relativistic frame; the scenario says both things.

The inflation period of the universe could be modeled as space-time plus distance potential. This would add an omnipresent affect to our early space-time universe, that at one time appeared to expand faster that the speed of light. Now it has no center, but expands in all directions at all points, independent of time.

 

[justaguy313]

There is nothing in Carl Sagan's works that remotely relates to the belief in a Theistic God. It is unethical to misuse the writings of someone else to justify what you believe.

For example "What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]"

At best he was an agnostic naturalist like Einstein. Like Einstein the Cosmos was his God.

 

[shunyadragon]

An ancient reenacted video of Einstein as child? doe not represent Einstein's view of God as an adult.

The only conclusion I can make with reasonable objectivity is like the problem of what is darkness and cold; the evil is the absence of good.

Again and again . . .

There is nothing in Carl Sagan's works that remotely relates to the belief in a Theistic God. It is unethical to misuse the writings of someone else to justify what you believe.

For example "What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]"

At best he was an agnostic naturalist like Einstein. Like Einstein the Cosmos was his God. He absolutely rejected the Abrahamic God of the Torah and the Bible.

 

[wellwisher]

The 2D people could see the 2D image of the apple. They couldn't see the whole apple but they could at least see the 2D section of the apple where it intersected their plane. There was physical 2D evidence of the apple allowing the 2D person to accept the existence of the apple. So where is the physical evidence for God?

We can draw 3-D images on a 2-D plane using highlights and shadowing. Below these simple shapes look 3-D to the eyes, but they are actuality 2-D, with an illusion of 3-D. Touch your computer screen to prove it to yourself. God is more genuine 3-D like a ball that your can touch with your hand and feel in 3-D. The extra z-axis is connected to feelings; intuition and faith. The eyes can be fooled by 3-D illusions in 2-D so you need another inner sense to perceive the z-axis.

There is also what I call the spatial illusion which is when 3-D is drawn on 2-D to create affects that cannot exist in the 3-D world, but can still fool the eyes. One such drawing is Relativity by the artist Escher. Each man in the painting looks like he is part of a valid reference, but taken together they all cannot exist at the same time. Politics is a good example of this relative reference illusion. The 2-D brain is easier to confuse by this illusion since it assumes 3-D. However, one has clearer insight if you can practice real 3-D with God type symbolism.

 

[shunyadragon]

We can draw 3-D images on a 2-D plane using highlights and shadowing. Below these simple shapes look 3-D to the eyes, but they are actuality 2-D, with an illusion of 3-D. Touch your computer screen to prove it to yourself. God is more genuine 3-D like a ball that your can touch with your hand and feel in 3-D. The extra z-axis is connected to feelings; intuition and faith. The eyes can be fooled by 3-D illusions in 2-D so you need another inner sense to perceive the z-axis.

There is also what I call the spatial illusion which is when 3-D is drawn on 2-D to create affects that cannot exist in the 3-D world, but can still fool the eyes. One such drawing is Relativity by the artist Escher. Each man in the painting looks like he is part of a valid reference, but taken together they all cannot exist at the same time. Politics is a good example of this relative reference illusion. The 2-D brain is easier to confuse by this illusion since it assumes 3-D. However, one has clearer insight if you can practice real 3-D with God type symbolism.

Harry Potter's Castle stairs.

How does this relate to the topic of the thread?

 

[justaguy313]

An ancient reenacted video of Einstein as child? doe not represent Einstein's view of God as an adult.

The only conclusion I can make with reasonable objectivity is like the problem of what is darkness and cold; the evil is the absence of good.

Again and again . . .

There is nothing in Carl Sagan's works that remotely relates to the belief in a Theistic God. It is unethical to misuse the writings of someone else to justify what you believe.

For example "What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]"

At best he was an agnostic naturalist like Einstein. Like Einstein the Cosmos was his God. He absolutely rejected the Abrahamic God of the Torah and the Bible.

It's the proof that Einstein believed in God. He didn't believe in Abrahamic God of the Bible, but he at least knew that there is a Omniscient Creator out there and all this couldn't come about as a mere coincidence or situations of circumstances.

"Human beings, being a creature that is limited, do not have the ability to imagine anything that God has not already imagined before, and anything that God imagines comes into being, he creates, and so therefore all of the ideas that come to us or any other species out there, are not new ideas but rather they are old. Instead of us giving birth to new things it is more like we're satellites that are receiving or pulling from The Ether of existence, you know from the God mind so to speak, images of things that already, we're detecting images of things that God has already created in another world. " - Aba Al-Sadiq (FHIP)

"This entire universe, and that which is in it, is not worth the wing of a mosquito. Because a wing of a mosquito is made of many, many, many cells, while all of this exists only in one cell. And that mosquito exists in a world that's higher than our world, larger than our world. We're all just existing on its back.
This mosquito also exists in its own universe whereby each and every one of its other cells that are on its back, and on its wings, and on its arms, and on its face, and eyes, and everything also contains its own universe within it. Every single living cell is a universe...." -"......And so all the other creatures that exist in the universe where that mosquito is in, they also are made of billions and trillions of cells. And each and every one of those cells is a universe. And the same is true for this world. Every creature that is in this world, every living cell that is in this world is made up of its own universe and has an infinite number of living beings that exist within each and every one of these, or each and every one of these cells. And so God, the Almighty, who is the creator of all things, that our brains cannot even fathom how much he has created out there, has created tons of parallel universes, an infinite number upwards and an infinite number downwards." - Aba Al-Sadiq (FHIP)

 

[shunyadragon]

It's the proof that Einstein believed in God.

If you consider the manifestation of Nature itself, or Spinosa view of God, maybe, but hardly represents an opinion that Einstein believed in "God."

He didn't believe in Abrahamic God of the Bible,

True

but he at least knew that there is a Omniscient Creator out there and all this couldn't come about as a mere coincidence or situations of circumstances.

As far as Einstein no Omniesent Creator.Your splitting frog hairs looking for the God of Sagan or Einstein.