randomsyllable

I was talking with some friends the other day and religion came up. As the theist were outnumbered I decided to play "Devil's Advocate" and side with them for fun. During this, I thought of a possible way to claim that God could exist despite several fallacies I think are present and a complete lack of scriptural support.

Oh well, here goes.

If God is omni-whatever, I justified this by saying that he was extradimensional. Then to explain this, I came up with the example of a sheet of paper. Much as we can percieve of two dimensions while existing in three, two-dimensional creatures couldn't comprehend us in return, or at least verify our existence. If we passed trough a plane, they would only (perhaps) see a cross-sectional slice at any given moment. However, we would still be limited to existing within a defined area of an infinitely large plane. - Thus we are extra-dimensional in one dimension to them.

Likewise, one-dimensional creatures wouldn't be able to percieve us beyond the impact we carry across their "line". Therefore, we are extradimensional in two dimensions.

...Zero dimensions, i.e. a point, we surround in all three dimensions which we percieve.

Thus, could God be a sixth, or higher dimensional entity? Theoretical physics has it worked out to at least seven dimensions I think, but I'm too lazy to verify that right now.

But anyways, ignoring specifically Christian thought, could this be the basis for a "God"?

After all, a bunch of semi-literate sheepherds in the middle of the desert wouldn't be the greatest source of accurate information if this entity decided to visit, then up and left.

Oh well, I'm just wondering where my flaw is. (I know there is one though - there always is ;p)


-random

Thomas Metcalf

I think your idea boils down to the idea that there is something that exists that we can't really say anything about, but can perceive us. The problem with this move is that (1) there's still no evidence for any kind of god and (2) if you say we can't know anything about this god, not only are you contradicting yourself, but we can't say it exists or has any characteristics, either. The theist is unable in principle to argue for its existence.

As for reasons to disbelieve it, well, the same arguments apply. Problem of evil, incompatibility, and all that. If you can say God has characteristics X and Y, I can say that X and Y contradict each other.

Jobar

This might be useful for some Deistic vision of God- but certainly not for the Xtian one. A higher-dimensional being could interact with our perceived 3D+time in ways that would seem completely miraculous to us, and since we do not see such phenomena, at minimum any such being has no interest in us.

Synaesthesia

Jobar,

You forget again that this trans-dimensional creature could interact with us in an interesting way. He can do anything he wants to, he's God.

There's no logical way to deduce or adduce the qualities and capabilities of an infinitely complex creature.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

sir drinks-a-lot

Sounds like the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/014043531X/qid=1028615431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-4253980-5990355" target="_blank">flatland</a>.

Best case scenario, all you have offered is "a possible way to claim that God could exist" which is not too strong a case for much. It is trivial to come up with a possible way to claim that almost anything could exist! Most nonbelievers will readily admit that there is a possibility, even if only infinitesimal, that god could exist.

Philosoft

Random, are you referring to 10-dimensional string theory or 11-dimensional M-theory? Both of those postulate 'higher' dimensions that are extremely small, essentially only large enough for planck-length strings to oscillate in, which accounts for their non-observability. I don't think this is what theists have in mind when they argue for an extra-dimensional god.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Yes, it's the 'God of the gaps' again.

Putting God outside the universe, or outside our dimension, or 'beyond our ability to know', still offers us no evidence for the existence of God.

And these are arbitrary claims: they cannot be proven, nor disproven.

Reason rejects the arbitrary. When there is no evidence for or against a claim, the rational person withholds belief until at least some evidence is forthcoming.

Even if there were such a God, there would still be no reason (literally) to believe in Him/Her/It.

Keith Russell.

Dr S

As I see it the two main problems with your sci fi version of god are
1) While you have done a fine job of explaining why your audience can't know about god you have also explained why you can't either. Since you are claiming knowledge this information you need to find a loop hole.
2) If god is everywhere-as the Xian god is by his job description-he can't NOT be in some dimensions. Since these dimensions are "somewhere."

WJ

Keith! Just an observation. I see many atheists make that mistake time and time again. Inference is not arbitrary, it is based upon evidence (ie, cosmological argument). I think you confuse deduction and induction. Inductive reasoning is not arbitrary as you suggest. A conclusion reached in the manner you advocate provides for no content, meaning and knowledge other than a suspended belief that sort of just is. (Now if you're referring to Anselm's ontological argument that would be a different matter...)

Taking no position at all is *meaningless* if you want to deduce something or conclude something thru deduction as you just have or suggested. In fact, it would almost be a logical contradiction or at least an attack on logical inference from the fallacy of irrelevence. Deduction relates to yes/no, true/false conclusive reasoning, not to "forthcoming evidence" or a suspended belief.

To make that point clearer, let me ask you, what does it really mean when you say "... until at least some evidence is forthcoming." (?)Do you view forthcoming evidence as scientific in nature? And if so, what method is/would be appropriate for this discovery?

Walrus

randomsyllable

Hee hee. Thx guys - I was just checking my postulate so I could better refute my own statement. Odd, that sometimes, but oh well.

I agree - it was just an exercise in my quick rationalization ability. The flaw I had with it is that it is not nescessarily possible for an n-dimensional entity to interact with a &lt;n dimensional entity as one cannot full percieve the other and the n-dimensional entity cannot interact without dropping to the same dimensional level, negating the aspects of said entity which are omni-whatever.