Can god banish himself to hell?

Originally posted by Agerg
Define this extra dimension fully such that we understand it as well as we understand the dimension you removed from the sphere and then explain to us why we have difficulty accepting it.

It's not his job to explain to you why you have trouble understanding something.

Further, your attitude of "define xyz fully so I understand it or I won't accept it [hands in ear] la-la-la" is simply childish. Grow up. There are things about science (which you do accept) that you don't understand and probably never will (ever tried to visualise a four-dimensional cube as Penrose and a few others can?) The point of analogies is to help you grasp the basics of something even when you are absolutely incapable of understanding it but, as I said earlier, it's up to you to make the effort.

Finally, so what if this extra dimension cannot be defined fully by human beings? Since when did we become omniscient?

Originally posted by Agerg
Didn't see your spheres and circles story first time round but the analogy (as is usually par for the course) is a fallacy...

You take what is necessarily true about a physical object, ([b]that it exists in three dimensions)...strip away one of these dimensions, and then suggest that this physical object existing only in 2 dimensions (but able to talk.. ...[text shortened]... mension you removed from the sphere and then explain to us why we have difficulty accepting it.[/b]

I didn't remove anything from the sphere. I think you had better read the original thread it's called "Dr who sphere and circle" and it's probably on page 2 or 3 by now. There's little point in continuing until you do because your argument will be based on a misrepresentation.

The sphere and circle story shows how if you exist in a limited dimension then an entity that exists in an extra dimension to yours is going to look quite wierd in some ways. The circle not understanding how the sphere can be many different sized circles all at the same time is analogous to us not understanding how God can be both in our future , past and present simultaneously. It doesn't make logical sense from the point of view of limited dimensionality.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, its nothing like that. How many more people do you need to tell you that your position is untenable before you understand that it is?

Truth is not decided by democracy I'm afraid. If one were to accept Christianity as true and then depart from it simply because a whole load of Atheists found the idea of an extra dimension to existence or God defying the physical laws of nature hard to reconcile with their world view then there wouldn't be many Christians around!!!!

I maintain this position because although I have heard arguments against my positon I have yet to hear one that convinces me my position is self contradictory. If God exists I would not expect him to be always easy to comprehend so the fact that you and others struggle with it doesn't phase me at all. I expect it.

In any case I think I remember going head to head with you on the sphere and circle thread and held my own very respectably , so if you would care to return that's fine by me.

Anyway , I never put forward the sphere and circle idea as "proof" , just as an alternative and reasoned way of looking at dimensions and what eternity might be like. Nothing more , nothing less. I think it works quite well.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
God is omnipotent, however this does not mean he can perform illogical impossible acts. Hell is the absence of God, which makes your question an illogical one.

The question is a variation of the question whether or not God can make a stone he cannot lift.

if hell is the absence of god and god doesnt interfere with our lives, then we are living in hell

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
...then we are living in hell

Good morning.

Originally posted by stocken
Good morning.

its possible, but i dont believe its true

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
its possible, but i dont believe its true

But the personal nature of it all.

Originally posted by stocken
But the personal nature of it all.

if this is not hell, its not far from it, i bet.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if this is not hell, its not far from it, i bet.

The actual location is secondary to your emotional state.

Originally posted by stocken
The actual location is secondary to your emotional state.

what's that supposed to mean?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
what's that supposed to mean?

It means what it says. How I feel is directly related to whether or not
I'm in hell, not the actual location (earth or some other dimension).
Which is what I meant by the personal nature of it all. My heaven might
be your version of hell.

Is it possible that some of us are being punished, whereas others are
receiving the rewards for having been good in some alternate universe
with the same basic laws as this one? That those of us who meets with
the great one's approval will be rewarded in another life, in another
person's hell? I hope I end up in a gay universe with Bruce Springsteen
as my butt keeper then. (He's gonna have to use his raspy tongue too
for all the audial pain he's caused me in this one.)

Originally posted by stocken
It means what it says. How I feel is directly related to whether or not
I'm in hell, not the actual location (earth or some other dimension).
Which is what I meant by the personal nature of it all. My heaven might
be your version of hell.

Is it possible that some of us are being punished, whereas others are
receiving the rewards for having been go ...[text shortened]... nna have to use his raspy tongue too
for all the audial pain he's caused me in this one.)

anything is possible

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
anything is possible

Sure is.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not his job to explain to you why you have trouble understanding something.

Further, your attitude of "define xyz fully so I understand it or I won't accept it [hands in ear] la-la-la" is simply childish. Grow up. There are things about science (which you do accept) that you don't understand and probably never will (ever tried to visualise a f ra dimension cannot be defined fully by human beings? Since when did we become omniscient?

Further, your attitude of "define xyz fully so I understand it or I won't accept it [hands in ear] la-la-la" is simply childish. Grow up. There are things about science (which you do accept) that you don't understand and probably never will (ever tried to visualise a four-dimensional cube as Penrose and a few others can?) The point of analogies is to help you grasp the basics of something even when you are absolutely incapable of understanding it but, as I said earlier, it's up to you to make the effort.

Accepting xyz from a person who has not justified it, or knows how to define it without being inclined to test or challenge the statement is foolish...I am an atheist and a skeptic LH. I do not believe in ghosts, God, fairies, santa claus or anything else of this nature precisely because of the reason you think I am childish... that how such entities interact with our world has not been described in more detailed terms than: they just do, the lack of evidence is also a factor.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I didn't remove anything from the sphere. I think you had better read the original thread it's called "Dr who sphere and circle" and it's probably on page 2 or 3 by now. There's little point in continuing until you do because your argument will be based on a misrepresentation.

The sphere and circle story shows how if you exist in a limited dimensio ...[text shortened]... aneously. It doesn't make logical sense from the point of view of limited dimensionality.

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