Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

Since I now have time to write a nice, high-quality blog post about nonpoint energy field theory, let’s take a look at it. You can find the logical “proof” here.

If A is only T, K and O
and if B is only T, K and O
Then A is B.
No, the logical proof is using properties T, K and O. So, we will reword it:
If A has properties T, K, and O
and if B has properties T, K and O
Then A is B
Now the fallacy is glaring. Imagine the following example:
If apple A is red
and if apple B is red
Then apple A is apple B
As you can tell, the problem exists when there are two red apples. They are clearly not the same apple just because they are red.
And further, because this “proof” uses god, it looks more like:
If god has properties T, K, O, A, and B
and if the 0th has properties T, K, and O,
Then god is the 0th dimension
In this example, I thought of A and B as answering prayers and preforming miracles respectively. Of course, you could always define away the problem by saying god doesn’t do those things but that is just another ad hoc explanation.
To further reject that possible ad hoc explanation, why call it god. Even if you fixed the fallacy, there is no reason to call the universe god when we already call the universe “the universe.”
I see no way out now. Nonpoint energy theory is dead in the water.
Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

  1. Thats not a logical refutation because a logical refutation would be:
    If Apple A exists at a moment of 4dimensional space-time,
    And if Apple B exists at the same moment of 4dimensional space-time as apple A.
    Then Apple A is Apple B.

    Your logic is way too simplistic to be a refutation and quite frankly, wrong.

    • I demonstrated the problem, corrected the problem, and then demonstrated a second problem on top of that solution. I then explained a way to evade that problem and a problem with that evasion. That is not that simple.

      I already explained how it does not necessarily mean apple A is apple B so your logic is faulty because it declares that absolutely when A and B could be very different. Sure apple A and apple B could be the same, but if they could be different. Your proof fails because it does not address that.

      • You are asserting that the properties of having an infinite amount of all properties is in some way equatable with having finite properties.

        An Infinitely large number does not equal a really large finite number.
        And an infinitely small number does not equal a really small finite number.

        Therefore your “having properties” counter-argument is uncredible.

        • I didn’t mention infinity at all, but you can’t state that two things are the same based on such a small set of properties which are so vaguely defined.

  2. Thats not a logical refutation.

    Because….
    If Apple A exists at a moment of 4dimensional space-time,
    And if Apple B exists at the same moment of 4dimensional space-time as apple A.
    Then Apple A is Apple B.

    Your logic is way too simplistic to be a refutation and quite frankly, wrong.

    • You have just ignored the other dimensions that you proved in your logical proof. Different apples in the 1st, 2nd, and 3ed dimension (made up of your 0th dimension). Therefore, they must be a different apples in the 4th dimension.

      • You are asserting that I said things that I did not say.

        Second of all… the space-time dimension 4 (which implies that dimension 3,2,1 and 0 exist)

        I just stated that if an apple A exists at the same moment in 4dimensional space-time as apple B, then apple A IS apple B…. UNLESS a 5th dimension(or more) exists… but thats a whole other discussion.

        If and only if ONLY 4 dimensions exist AND apple A exists at the same moment/space of space-time as apple B exists… then apple A is apple B.

        Thats a FACT.

        You are asserting that different apples exist in dimensions 1,2, and 3…. but share the 4th dimension(time). If the apples exist in different dimensions 1,2, and 3…. then they are different apples. FACT.

        5th dimensional stuff is a little complicated for this discussion and I will not entertain it on anyone elses blog but mine.

        • Are you asserting that god exists in this 4 dimensional time in the same moment/space as the 0th dimension? If so, where is your proof that this god occupies or is said dimension.
          I shows that you equivocated two things based on three properties not all the properties which is why you need to define away the problems in your proof.

  3. Also… I didnt call the Universe God.

    I said that the 0th dimension inherits with it the properties of all dimensions being All present, All Knowing and All Powerful.

    And if God is only All Present, All Knowing and All Powerful…
    And the 0th dimension PROVES that a thing exists that exists which is only All Present, All Knowing and All Powerful….
    Then that PROVES that God exists.

    God is a multidimensional being… existing in the 0th dimension, 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, 3rd dimension, 4 dimension…. and possible others(such as the 5th dimension or more)

    THATS what I said, so your response is very weak… to say the least.

  4. I will correct my wording in the article to switch universe for 0th dimension.

    You have proved that such a thing with your vaugely defined terms such as “knowing” and “powerful.”

    You assert that this god is multidimensional but you haven’t proved it.

      • H2O is ice, but ice is not H2O.
        H2O is water vapor, but water vapor is not H2O.

        A computer is a CPU, but a CPU is not a computer.

        My shirt is cotton, but cotton is not my shirt.

        Atoms are energy, but energy is not atoms.

        Electrons are 4th-dimensional volumes of space-time, but 4th dimensional volumes of space-time are not electrons.

        The 3rd dimension is the 4th dimension, but the 4th dimension is not the 3rd dimension.

        The 2nd dimension is the 3rd dimension, but the 3rd dimension is not the 2nd dimension.

        The 1st dimension is the 2nd dimension, but the 2nd dimension is not the 1st dimension.

        The 0th dimension is the 1st dimension, but 1st dimension is not the 0th dimension.

        God is the 0th dimension, but the 0th dimension is NOT God.

        • What you are saying is:
          A CPU is part of a computer, but not all of it.
          A shirt is made from cotton, but not all cotton is a shirt.
          As far as the 0th dimension being a god goes, there are many things you could mean:

          1. God is the 0th dimension, but there is also parts of the 0th dimension which are not god
          2. God is the 0th dimension, but is more than the 0th dimension (in which case, you haven’t proved god)
  5. “God is the 0th dimension, but is more than the 0th dimension (in which case, you haven’t proved god”

    Well, thats not true… I did prove it…. BECAUSE….. ONLY if dimensions 0, 1, 2 , 3 and 4 exist did I prove God(as defined in the proof) exists.

    BUT, it is ALSO true that ONLY if dimensions 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 exist did I prove that God exists.

    BUT… it is ALSO true that ONLY if dimensions -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 exist did I prove that God exists.

    BUT…. it is ALSO true that ONLY if dimensions 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and etceterea exist did I prove that God exists.

    BECAUSE, this proof takes into account extra dimensions IF they exist.
    But you have to believe in extra dimensions for them to logically exist…. except we may not be able to prove them with our current SCIENTIFIC understanding.

    Because earlier I proved that a LOGICAL proof is a SCIENTIFIC proof, but a SCIENTIFIC proof is NOT a LOGICAL proof.
    LOGIC!

    • You proved that the 0th dimension exists, you then called it god. You didn’t prove that god exists, you called something else god. That is not proof at all.

      So, back to my first question, why call it god?

      • I proved that the 0th dimension exists.
        I also stated that God is the 0th dimension but not only the 0th dimension.

        I believe that the 5th dimension is choice.

        You can choose to believe that you don’t have choice.
        But it is an inherently flawed and illogical thing choose to believe that you do not have choice…

        i.e. to believe the things that you know is to be reasonable. By definition.
        to only know the things that you know is to be unreasonable. By definition.

        One *cannot reason* with a person who only believes that they know things without agreeing that they believe the things that they know, rather than only knowing.

        Therefore to be reasonable is to have beliefs.
        It means that you cannot reason with *people* who claim to know everything.
        They are unreasonable.

        Let me reiterate this in other words:
        In order to be a reasonable person one must express that one does not possess absolute knowledge. One *must* believe everything that they know. And to have belief is synonymous with having faith.
        Therefore one must have absolute faith in the correctness of their knowledge in order to be reasonable.
        And one must have NO faith/belief in their knowledge in order to inherit with it the property of being unreasonable(one cannot reason with absolute knowledge of everything).

        So since you asked me the reason we should call it “God”, is because I *believe* that since there is One True God, individuals must follow the rules of this One True God.
        ie The Ten Commandments. A set of rules that spans across three of the worlds major religions.

        And I argue that it is possible for Monotheism to span across all religions.
        The Christians call God by the *name* of “Jesus” (or the three *names* of the Trinity.. Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
        Three or Four *names* but still One God.
        Jesus of Nazareth, of course is a MAN and a CARPENTER.
        And a finite being cannot be the One True God, but despite this…
        It is completely possible for the One True God to share the same *name* as Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus.

        The Hindus call God by the *name* of “Brahman”.
        Despite there being many polytheists and pantheists in Hinduism, the majority of them are Monotheists.
        The word “brahman” can mean a type cattle, but that is not what the Hindus mean when they say “Brahman”.
        So again, it is possible for Brahman to be a *name* of the One True God.

        Muslims call God by the *name* Allah(and many more names… like “Most Gracious”, “Most Merciful”, “Most High”, etcetera).
        The WORD Allah, when separated.. is lah, which means “god” and al which means “one”.
        So the WORD Allah is a *name* that MEANS.. “One God”.

        Buddhists call God by the *name* of “Nothing”.
        Although there being many atheists and pantheists in Buddhism, a good portion of them do believe in God.
        But I believe that Buddha(Siddhartha Gautama) stated that “the universe sprang forth from nothing”
        Because it is inappropriate to give a WORD to such a being as God…. which is actually a concept that is very common in Judaism.

        Jews Call God by the *name* of YWHW.
        The tetagrammation of Yahweh, which means “I am” or “I am who am” or “I am who I am”.
        But they also give several other names to God within the Old Testament, such as El, Jehovah, Eloah, Roi and many many others…. are used.

        However, despite all of these *NAMES* of God.
        It is generally understood, especially within the Abrahamic Religions, that when we pray to God… we all pray to the One True God.

        Who is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibonum.
        But only if you choose to believe it.
        Because it would have been bad of God to not give everyone free will.
        And God is all Good.

        • God is everything, so of course God is Jesus of Nazareth.
          But is Jesus of Nazareth God…. ie… God the Father?
          No.

          Because God(God the Father, the One True God) is omnipresent.
          And Jesus of Nazareth was only present within the Body of Jesus of Nazareth.
          And his soul, The Holy Spirit(who some philosophers call the community of believers), is obviously one with his body but not the same thing as his body.

          But God the Father is God the Son(the Body of Jesus), God the Father is also God the Holy Spirit(the soul of Jesus).

          But God the Father is not just a soul, God the Father is the creator of ALL souls.

          But the Body and Soul of Jesus of Nazareth are not God the Father.
          The Body and Soul of Jesus of Nazareth are only the Body and Soul of Jesus of Nazareth.
          God the Father is them, but not only them.
          So it is ONE God. Not three.

          Christianity is actually synonymous with Islam.

          One True God…. despite having many names, it is still the same One God.

          It is perfectly correct in the Logicians sense for a person to say:
          “God is me, but I am not God”
          But it is also correct in the Linguists sense for a person to sat:
          “I am God, but I am not the extent of God”

          I believe that this is where much of the confusion over the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth came to be.
          Of course, Jesus of Nazareth(God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is God. But he is not the extent of God(God the Father).(Linguistic)
          Of course God is Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus of Nazareth(The Son of God and his Soul, the Holy Spirit) is not God(God the Father).(Logician)

          But despite all this confusion…
          I still believe that it is acceptable to call God by the *name* of “Jesus”
          As long as one understands that it is the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibonum… “Jesus”.

          And not just the Carpenter/Man from Nazareth that they are praying to.

        • God is everything, so of course God is Jesus of Nazareth.
          But is Jesus of Nazareth God…. ie… God the Father?
          No.

          That is an assertion based on your flawed logical proof.

          Because God(God the Father, the One True God) is omnipresent.
          And Jesus of Nazareth was only present within the Body of Jesus of Nazareth.
          And his soul, The Holy Spirit(who some philosophers call the community of believers), is obviously one with his body but not the same thing as his body.

          More assertions based on a assertion based on a flawed logical proof.

          But God the Father is God the Son(the Body of Jesus), God the Father is also God the Holy Spirit(the soul of Jesus).

          Another assertion.

          But God the Father is not just a soul, God the Father is the creator of ALL souls.

          Another assertion.

          But the Body and Soul of Jesus of Nazareth are not God the Father.
          The Body and Soul of Jesus of Nazareth are only the Body and Soul of Jesus of Nazareth.
          God the Father is them, but not only them.
          So it is ONE God. Not three.

          Another assertion based on a flawed logical proof. You should really get that fixed.

          Christianity is actually synonymous with Islam.

          Ok, that doesn’t prove anything.

          One True God…. despite having many names, it is still the same One God.

          Prattle based on the assertion that there is a god.

          It is perfectly correct in the Logicians sense for a person to say:
          “God is me, but I am not God”
          But it is also correct in the Linguists sense for a person to sat:
          “I am God, but I am not the extent of God”

          I don’t have a problem with the “This is made of something but something is not all this” but I do have a problem with your assertion regarding god. You are committing a circular reasoning fallacy if you assume god to prove god.

          I believe that this is where much of the confusion over the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth came to be.
          Of course, Jesus of Nazareth(God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is God. But he is not the extent of God(God the Father).(Linguistic)
          Of course God is Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus of Nazareth(The Son of God and his Soul, the Holy Spirit) is not God(God the Father).(Logician)

          I don’t care to argue theology when you still have a flawed proof for god which you are making further assertions on.

          But despite all this confusion…
          I still believe that it is acceptable to call God by the *name* of “Jesus”
          As long as one understands that it is the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibonum… “Jesus”.

          Ok, call this god whatever you want, but you won’t find me worshiping him until you can prove that he exists.

          And not just the Carpenter/Man from Nazareth that they are praying to.

          Ok…

          So, let me summarize. Fix your logical proof so assertions you make based on it are actually valid. Making more assertions on top of a flawed logical proof doesn’t work and is illogical.

        • I proved that the 0th dimension exists.
          I also stated that God is the 0th dimension but not only the 0th dimension.

          You proved that the 0th dimension exists, I don’t dispute that. You then asserted that your god is the 0th dimension without providing evidence for it. I already pointed out the linguistic trickery you used to make such an equivocation.

          I believe that the 5th dimension is choice.

          Ok, believe what you want, but without evidence, I will not believe that.

          You can choose to believe that you don’t have choice.
          But it is an inherently flawed and illogical thing choose to believe that you do not have choice…

          That is more linguistic trickery. You have changed your definition of choice. If choice means that you make decisions based on physical laws that govern your brain, then yes, you can choose things, but those choices are pre-determined by those same physical laws. So, my brain chemistry can reason that I do not have free will if my choices are pre-determined by these laws. It only becomes illogical when you switch the definition of choice mid sentence. I can explain more if needed but I think I have given ample information here especially considering that it is not relevant to our original topic, especially if you assume choice is the 5th dimension in which case it was ignored in your “proof.”

          i.e. to believe the things that you know is to be reasonable. By definition.
          to only know the things that you know is to be unreasonable. By definition.

          I agree, I never claimed absolute knowledge and I argued against it on Twitter. But at the same time, I do not believe things without evidence. I know what I know to the extent I can know anything.

          One *cannot reason* with a person who only believes that they know things without agreeing that they believe the things that they know, rather than only knowing.

          You keep going with this belief topic, I hope it reaches a nice conclusion, but it seems that you are attacking me for things I never said.

          Therefore to be reaso.nable is to have beliefs.
          It means that you cannot reason with *people* who claim to know everything.
          They are unreasonable.

          Sure, I agreed with that above. But I never claimed to know everything

          Let me reiterate this in other words:
          In order to be a reasonable person one must express that one does not possess absolute knowledge. One *must* believe everything that they know. And to have belief is synonymous with having faith.
          Therefore one must have absolute faith in the correctness of their knowledge in order to be reasonable.
          And one must have NO faith/belief in their knowledge in order to inherit with it the property of being unreasonable(one cannot reason with absolute knowledge of everything).

          No, it would be irrational to have absolute faith in the correctness of their knowledge. It would be rational to accept that you may be flawed and therefore be open for correction when you are incorrect. You seem to imply that you are reasonable but this is false by definition because you assume that you are 100% correct and therefore can not be reasoned with.

          So since you asked me the reason we should call it “God”, is because I *believe* that since there is One True God, individuals must follow the rules of this One True God.

          Ok, that is a belief, not proof. You have digressed a long way from the “logical proof” that started this conversation.

          ie The Ten Commandments. A set of rules that spans across three of the worlds major religions.

          If you want to follow them, go ahead. I agree with some of them myself, but not because they are said to be divinely created.

          And I argue that it is possible for Monotheism to span across all religions.
          The Christians call God by the *name* of “Jesus” (or the three *names* of the Trinity.. Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
          Three or Four *names* but still One God.
          Jesus of Nazareth, of course is a MAN and a CARPENTER.
          And a finite being cannot be the One True God, but despite this…
          It is completely possible for the One True God to share the same *name* as Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus.

          Well, if you look at the older version of the Bible before it was edited, Jesus was said to be a hand laborer, but this was edited out and replaced with carpenter. I have no reason to discuss theology based on the assumption that a god exists. You can not prove something logically on top of an assumption.

          The Hindus call God by the *name* of “Brahman”.
          Despite there being many polytheists and pantheists in Hinduism, the majority of them are Monotheists.
          The word “brahman” can mean a type cattle, but that is not what the Hindus mean when they say “Brahman”.
          So again, it is possible for Brahman to be a *name* of the One True God.

          Sure, it is possible, but there is no reason to suspect it without evidence.

          Muslims call God by the *name* Allah(and many more names… like “Most Gracious”, “Most Merciful”, “Most High”, etcetera).
          The WORD Allah, when separated.. is lah, which means “god” and al which means “one”.
          So the WORD Allah is a *name* that MEANS.. “One God”.

          Ok, what is your point?

          Buddhists call God by the *name* of “Nothing”.
          Although there being many atheists and pantheists in Buddhism, a good portion of them do believe in God.
          But I believe that Buddha(Siddhartha Gautama) stated that “the universe sprang forth from nothing”
          Because it is inappropriate to give a WORD to such a being as God…. which is actually a concept that is very common in Judaism.

          It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the universe came from nothing because it is a zero energy universe and therefore is nothing itself. Of course, that does not mean it came from a god just because you call that god nothing. I can call my cat nothing, but the universe did not come from her.

          Jews Call God by the *name* of YWHW.
          The tetagrammation of Yahweh, which means “I am” or “I am who am” or “I am who I am”.
          But they also give several other names to God within the Old Testament, such as El, Jehovah, Eloah, Roi and many many others…. are used.

          Ok…

          However, despite all of these *NAMES* of God.
          It is generally understood, especially within the Abrahamic Religions, that when we pray to God… we all pray to the One True God.

          Which is a belief for which there is not evidence.

          Who is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibonum.
          But only if you choose to believe it.
          Because it would have been bad of God to not give everyone free will.
          And God is all Good.

          So this is only true if I choose to believe it? I don’t believe it. By your logic, that means that there is no god matching those attributes. And the rest is just more assertions.

  6. Right… I don’t need to *prove* that I believe something.

    It should be self-evident that I believe what I asserted.

    Thats the difference between theism and atheism.

    Theists only assert their BELIEFS.

    While Atheists try to assert that God does not exist without *PROVING* that God does not exist.

    While spreading an apologetic ideology that they “[I] only believe things [I] can prove.”

    THEN turning around and in a very hypocritical manner…
    Stating that they believe that God does not exist.

    Or even MORE absurd, stating that they *know* that God does not exist without *proving* that God does not exist!!!!

    “But didn’t you just say that you only believe things that you can prove?”
    “Yeah, but this is different…. I can’t prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist”

    ACTUALLY, logic doesn’t work that way….
    Just because you cant prove something, doesn’t mean that the opposite is true.

    ME on the other hand, my proof does not assert that God is the 0th dimension.

    MY proof relies on the concept that the definition of God is All Knowing, All Powerful and All present (and also All Good).
    That’s not a proof, that’s a DEFINITION.

    You don’t need to *prove* definitions, definitions are axioms of words.

    And since I proved that *something* exists that is all knowing, all powerful, and all present… I logically PROVED that God exists.

    It is also logical to assume that anything that is NOT Good exists… that it is NOT a part of God(by definition of God being ALL GOOD).

    So by disagreeing with my proof, you are merely asserting that you don’t believe in the definition of God that was given. And this is not a disproof/refutation of my proof, it is a disagreement of YOUR BELIEFS (which I believe is the 5th dimension).

  7. EDIT: This post is in reply to Charles Allison on August 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm. I didn’t click the reply button but instead wrote a direct comment.

    Right… I don’t need to *prove* that I believe something.
    It should be self-evident that I believe what I asserted.

    Correct.

    Thats the difference between theism and atheism.

    No, it is not.

    Theists only assert their BELIEFS.
    While Atheists try to assert that God does not exist without *PROVING* that God does not exist.

    There is a huge difference between beliefs which can be proven and beliefs which lack supporting evidence. Theists assert that a god exists while atheists assert that a god does not exist and go on to explain why. Also, don’t forgot agnostic atheists, but more on that later.

    While spreading an apologetic ideology that they “[I] only believe things [I] can prove.”

    It would be unwise to believe things that can’t be proven and are extremely improbable.

    THEN turning around and in a very hypocritical manner…
    Stating that they believe that God does not exist.

    Here is where we will talk more about agnostic atheism. I discussed the types of atheism in my first blog post: https://atheistthought.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/understanding-atheism/ and I would suggest that you read that if you are not familiar with it.

    Agnostic atheists do not assert that god does not exist but rather that it is impossible to know if a god exists, especially when people claim that their god is not testable, is invisible, is outside of the universe, etc. I happen to be an agnostic atheists towards many gods because people define away the testability problem.

    Another reason to assert that a god does not exist is because there is no evidence pointing towards its existence. There is not evidence to support unicorns, I say they do not exist. If there is no evidence to support a god, can I not address the situation in the same way? I have already rejected the idea of absolute certainty but to the extent which I can know anything, there is no god and there is no evidence to support one.

    On the other hand, it would be hypocritical to say that unicorns do not exist because they lack evidence but then say that god exists without providing evidence for it.

    It should also be noted that not all things are equally probable. I don’t ask you to disprove that unicorns exist to justify your lack of belief in them. However, you ask me to prove that god does not exist when there is the same lack of evidence. If you were to present evidence, that would be a different story.

    Or even MORE absurd, stating that they *know* that God does not exist without *proving* that God does not exist!!!!

    I am not aware of anyone who did this, but I can provide a few logical proofs against some gods if you would like. Just let me know.

    Also, you might also want to discuss this point with someone who has done this.

    “But didn’t you just say that you only believe things that you can prove?”
    “Yeah, but this is different…. I can’t prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist”

    And the opposite is equally fallacious. “I can’t prove a god does not exist, therefore a god exists.”

    ACTUALLY, logic doesn’t work that way….

    I know. You pointed out the reverse of your fallacy and then applied it to me in some way. It helps if I actually make that fallacy before you accuse me of it.

    Just because you cant prove something, doesn’t mean that the opposite is true.

    Exactly! And just because you can’t disprove something doesn’t make the opposite true.

    ME on the other hand, my proof does not assert that God is the 0th dimension.

    You certainly seemed to suggest it, but I will not dwell on this now that I understand what you really meant.

    MY proof relies on the concept that the definition of God is All Knowing, All Powerful and All present (and also All Good).
    That’s not a proof, that’s a DEFINITION.

    Are you attempting to define something into existence? Firstly, you have stretched the definitions of knowing and powerful. Secondly, I have already demonstrated that you can’t equivocate a god with the 0th dimension just because some of their properties are the same. And Finally, this does not prove a typical god that would intervene in human affairs; your proof seems to suggest that god is nothing more than the 0th dimension and in that case, why call it god if the world would imply something else to most people?

    You don’t need to *prove* definitions, definitions are axioms of words.

    Correct, but you can’t just switch the names of things to say that something exists. I could use the same definition as pencil for god but that does not mean that a supernatural being exists because a pencil exists.

    And since I proved that *something* exists that is all knowing, all powerful, and all present… I logically PROVED that God exists.

    Again, that requires a stretched definition of powerful and knowing (please clarify how god and the 0th dimension exhibit these properties). And again, even if these things exhibit the same properties that does not mean that they are the same.

    Maybe I should clarify my apple example. There are two apples which are exactly the same in every way (except their location of course). Are they the same apple? No. It would be crazy to think so. The very question says that there is two different apples. Unless you say that this god does not do anything supernatural, I reject your definition.

    If your definition of god is just the 0th dimension then in that case I accept that it exists but I question why it is called “god” because it isn’t supernatural.

    It is also logical to assume that anything that is NOT Good exists… that it is NOT a part of God(by definition of God being ALL GOOD).

    Where does your logical proof say that the 0th dimension is all good? It seems like an extra property of god that is not present in the 0th dimension. Of course your 0th dimension is god but got is not all 0th dimension argument is another thing which needs to be logically proven to prove god.

    So by disagreeing with my proof, you are merely asserting that you don’t believe in the definition of God that was given. And this is not a disproof/refutation of my proof, it is a disagreement of YOUR BELIEFS (which I believe is the 5th dimension).

    I do believe in the definition of god that was given but that definition can also be expressed by calling it the 0th dimension. However, I do disagree if god is anything supernatural and that is something you never clarified. I also demonstrated that some beliefs are more valid than others and even more so if you reject absolute certainty.

    One more question: How do you know what is good if there is nothing bad?

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s