Originally posted by whodeyUhm.. yes... "evidences" such as vague writings which are open to interpretation (both in language and meaning) and both written and "proven" in the same book.
You cannot mathmatically prove a being which you cannot fully comprehend. This is only common sense. However, there are evidences such as the one I provided that become rather uncomfotable to explain away.
Sorry, doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid.
-JC
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
11 is a perfectly respectable number of dimensions. other common sugestions include 2, 7, 21, 3, and 4. the point was they can be described mathematicaly. they don't nesecerily represent reality (and the evidently can't all represent reality). experiments are being devised that might be able to detect some of these hypotosised other dimensions. 11 by the way is the number preferred by M theorists.
Edit: and technically it is 'AN 11 dimensional space time'. I know I am the last person to correct other peoples grammer but that one just sounds nasty. apologys if it was a typo.
Originally posted by whodeyIf he was so inclined though, he could go out get a couple of degrees, buy a big telescope and look at it. Not something you can do with god.
Do you believe that Pluto exists? It is a small dark planet that is largely invisible, no? You do believe it exists as a result of being told it exists by people you respect.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, you can do the same with God. Go out and get a couple of degrees in philosophy, history and theology.
If he was so inclined though, he could go out get a couple of degrees, buy a big telescope and look at it. Not something you can do with god.
Alternatively, you can learn to look deep within your own soul.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd if there's no sch thing as a soul? How would one begin such an inquiry?
Actually, you can do the same with God. Go out and get a couple of degrees in philosophy, history and theology.
Alternatively, you can learn to look deep within your own soul.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe big difference being that everyone who buys the telescope agrees on the position and existence of Pluto. No so for people with degrees in philosophy, history and theology. Thier opinions tend to disagree so wildly that what they say can not be taken as an indication of an underlying truth unlike the independant verification for the existance of pluto.
Actually, you can do the same with God. Go out and get a couple of degrees in philosophy, history and theology.
Alternatively, you can learn to look deep within your own soul.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou incorrectly assume a universal result. As twhitehead mentions, everyone will find Pluto - same place, same time.
Actually, you can do the same with God. Go out and get a couple of degrees in philosophy, history and theology.
Alternatively, you can learn to look deep within your own soul.
Those who "look deep within their own souls" are not guaranteed to agree with your perspective. Some will find intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, Truths.
-JC
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlright, so maybe people will agree on the existence (?) and position of Pluto. But you'll find disagreement as to whether Pluto is a planet or not. If you get into theories of the origin of the Universe, or what happens within singularities, you will get even more disagreement. Does that mean that the origin of the Universe does not have an underlying truth value?
The big difference being that everyone who buys the telescope agrees on the position and existence of Pluto. No so for people with degrees in philosophy, history and theology. Thier opinions tend to disagree so wildly that what they say can not be taken as an indication of an underlying truth unlike the independant verification for the existance of pluto.
EDIT: Besides, there's a more basic category error here. You cannot simply apply the methods of science to every single area of human knowing. For instance, do you know if your partner/spouse loves you? How would you prove it?