apparently, physic's laws say god does exist?

I've looked at God "extradimensionally" for a long time now and I consider flatlander analogies to be informative.
 
The concept he's trying to relay is that God is a higher-dimensional being. It's intersection, therefore, with our lower-dimensional Universe would exhibit aspects that might seem "miraculous" or at least very confusing to us. While this might explain how such interactions might occur the author fails to take into account that while such a manifestation might be inexplicable to us it would definitely be observable. An interesting analogy, to be sure, but it fails to prove anything.

~Raithere

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attacks ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die. Roy Baty (Nexus 6), "Bladerunner"
 
Interesting analogy.

God is so superior to us, he exists in such a higher dimension than do we that what is natural and ordinary to him is miraculous to us.

God is superior. He created our universe in his dimension as easy as drawing a circle on a piece of paper.

"There is no third way you fool," cries out the man in Flatland, and for him this is true.

LOL...:D
 
Generally I think that this is the closest I'll come to accepting God as it fits into science the most.

Perhaps God is a being that looks, when viewed on a 3rd-dimensional plane, from some point, like a human being. Perhaps he "drew" on a "piece of paper" our universe. Imagine drawing little houses, little people. Perhaps too many people immortalize him beyond what should be-- perhaps he is just a lonely being, the only one in his dimension, and created us to keep him company, but has his own feelings and emotions that cause him to "erase" people or draw dangerous things, etc.
 
So? What you said is true. It is always true, no one can dispute it. We have a name for stuff liek that, you've heard it before...

...it's called...(drumroll)

..."religion", duh. Anything that cannot be disproved by physical evidence, and therefore not open to scientific discussion, is not a part of science. It is a part of religion.

Any thoughts?
 
Back
Top