Maynmann:

So why does your god need to be in “higher dimensions” if he can exist without it?

A proof that you aren't reading for comprehension!

I said:

Acts 17:28:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
Relatively (to us) God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!

What does the word RELATIVELY mean in the quote above?

TenQ:

A proof that you aren't reading for comprehension!

I said:

Acts 17:28:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
Relatively (to us) God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!

What does the word RELATIVELY mean in the quote above?

A proof you do not understand what you are saying.

“God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!”

You just suggests that God encompasses or contains all dimensions within Himself, he is the highest dimension doesn’t mean he is within the dimensions, he is higher and beyond dimensions.

How you are using relatively to discuss science is baffling lol

Maynmann:


Yes. Spirit means the same definition.
It seems your definition of “spirit” is muddled up.

So, you think that according to Christians and Jews God, Demons and Angels are wind/air!?

I oblige you to Continue in this delusion!

TenQ:

So, you think that according to Christians and Jews God, Demons and Angels are wind/air!?

I oblige you to Continue in this delusion!

Does demon and angels have the same word as “spirit” lol.
Look up the origin of the seperste words and also, have you ever researched what jews think of demons?

Maynmann:

A proof you do not understand what you are saying.

“God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!”

You just suggests that God encompasses or contains all dimensions within Himself, he is the highest dimension doesn’t mean he is within the dimensions, he is higher and beyond dimensions.

How you are using relatively to discuss science is baffling lol

The spirit of confusion has entered you again so that in other to win an argument, your judgement and reasoning evaporate.

Relative doesn't exist in Science.

Is time absolute or relative?

TenQ:

The spirit of confusion has entered you again so that in other to win an argument, your judgement and reasoning evaporate.

Relative doesn't exist in Science.

Is time absolute or relative?

So science use “relative” in the way you are using it?

In scientific discourse, the term "relative" is often replaced with more precise terms or concepts.

In physics, for example, the theory of relativity, specifically Einstein's theory of general relativity, describes the relationships between space, time, and gravity. In this context, "relative" refers to the dependence of physical phenomena on the reference frame of an observer or the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.

Maynmann:

Does demon and angels have the same word as “spirit” lol.
Look up the origin of the seperste words and also, have you ever researched what jews think of demons?

Please stop this nonsense as you are giving me headaches

What are Evil Spirits? Evil Wind?
Ps 104:4:
"Who makes his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:"

Half knowledge destroys my dear!

TenQ:

Please stop this nonsense as you are giving me headaches

What are Evil Spirits? Evil Wind?
Ps 104:4:
"Who makes his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:"

Half knowledge destroys my dear!

You are reading a book you lack his context.

What are “angels”?

You lack knowledge on your beliefs.

Maynmann:

So science use “relative” in the way you are using it?

In scientific discourse, the term "relative" is often replaced with more precise terms or concepts.

In physics, for example, the theory of relativity, specifically Einstein's theory of general relativity, describes the relationships between space, time, and gravity. In this context, "relative" refers to the dependence of physical phenomena on the reference frame of an observer or the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.

Did you not just condemn me for using the word RELATIVELY in science ?

Maynmann:

...
How you are using relatively to discuss science is baffling lol

You are indeed baffling?

Did you even check up the meaning of RELATIVE as used in the sentence?
No!

TenQ:

Did you not just condemn me for using the word RELATIVELY in science ?



You are indeed baffling?

Did you even check up the meaning of RELATIVE as used in the sentence?
No!

I condemned the way you use it compared to what it means in science, see what you said “Relatively (to us) God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!”

Is this how science use relativity?

Maynmann:

You are reading a book you lack his context.

What are “angels”?

You lack knowledge on your beliefs.

It's okay!
I don't have time to waste with you:
All because your new train of argument was extinguished, but you must just continue to talk even if it is just chaotic nonsense!

Have a nice day: I await you lecture on Angels and Demons!

LOL!

Maynmann:

I condemned the way you use it compared to what it means in science, see what you said “Relatively (to us) God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!”

Is this how science use relativity?

Another gaffle:
Relative or Relativity is only used in science!?

Continue!

How you quickly descend into this uncoordinated mess of argument is amazing to me!

TenQ:

It's okay!
I don't have time to waste with you:
All because your new train of argument was extinguished, but you must just continue to talk even if it is just chaotic nonsense!

Have a nice day: I await you lecture on Angels and Demons!

LOL!

Hope you know that Old Testament belongs to jews and they call it tanakh, if you want to learn the true meaning of words and whay they mean, revert back to judaism and the hebrew language.

Here more knowledge on your beliefs
https://www.learnreligions.com/angels-kabbalah-tree-of-life-124294

TenQ:

Another gaffle:
Relative or Relativity is only used in science!?

Continue!

How you quickly descend into this uncoordinated mess of argument is amazing to me!

Only relativity is used in science.

Relative (adjective):
Everyday meaning: When something is described as relative, it means it is considered or assessed in relation to something else. It implies a comparison or dependence on another factor.
Example: "The temperature in this room is relative to the temperature outside."


Relativity (noun):
Scientific theory: Relativity, specifically Einstein's theory of relativity, refers to a fundamental physical theory that describes the relationships between space, time, and gravity. It encompasses two theories: special relativity and general relativity.
Special relativity: Special relativity deals with phenomena observed in inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames and explains the behavior of objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light.
General relativity: General relativity extends special relativity to include the effects of gravity, describing how mass and energy curve spacetime and affect the motion of objects.

You lack meaning of words you are using, ordinary “spirit” you don’t know, learn them first, look up the language in hebrew.
You lack knowledge on your beliefs, that’s why you are lost.

Maynmann:

Only relativity is used in science.

Relative (adjective):
Everyday meaning: When something is described as relative, it means it is considered or assessed in relation to something else. It implies a comparison or dependence on another factor.
Example: "The temperature in this room is relative to the temperature outside."


Relativity (noun):
Scientific theory: Relativity, specifically Einstein's theory of relativity, refers to a fundamental physical theory that describes the relationships between space, time, and gravity. It encompasses two theories: special relativity and general relativity.
Special relativity: Special relativity deals with phenomena observed in inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames and explains the behavior of objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light.
General relativity: General relativity extends special relativity to include the effects of gravity, describing how mass and energy curve spacetime and affect the motion of objects.

You lack meaning of words you are using, ordinary “spirit” you don’t know, learn them first, look up the language in hebrew.
You lack knowledge on your beliefs, that’s why you are lost.

Maynmann:

Hope you know that Old Testament belongs to jews and they call it tanankh, if you want to learn the true meaning of words and whay they mean, revert back to judaism and the hebrew language.

Here more knowledge on your beliefs
https://www.learnreligions.com/angels-kabbalah-tree-of-life-124294

Typo error :
I meant to write relatively not relativity!
The context should have helped you but no: like a brute mule looking for an excuse to fain knowledge

Not withstanding, when you get your thoughts together, you can holla me!
Right now, you make no sense: all you are doing is throwing tantrums only to keep yourself talking

TenQ:



Typo error :
I meant to write relatively not relativity!

Not withstanding, when you get you thoughts together, you can holla me!
Right now, you make no sense: all you are doing is throwing tantrums only to keep yourself talking

Bwahahahahah
How did you arrive at your own theory of relativity before applying it to dimensions?
What are the requirements for relativity before it even becomes a theory? Have you met the requirements?
You are using assumptions to prove assumptions, is that not fiction?

When you know the origin of the word “angel” lemme know, going further, you’ve heard of “archangel”, have you ever looked up the origin of the word “arche”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche

Maynmann:

Bwahahahahah
How did you arrive at your own theory of relativity before applying it to dimensions?
What are the requirements for relativity before it even becomes a theory? Have you met the requirements?
You are using assumptions to prove assumptions, is that not fiction?

When you know the origin of the word “angel” lemme know, going further, you’ve heard of “archangel”, have you ever looked up the origin of the word “arche”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche

Ignored!
LOL!
Keep thrashing about

TenQ:

Ignored!
LOL!
Keep thrashing about

Saying “ignored” doesn’t mean you are lol.
All what you believe are delusions, that is why you have to “believe” them, have knowledge on your beliefs

Maynmaynmayn:
No, it is not possible for a hypothetical point object in a one-dimensional space to know or detect, by any means, that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces such as 2D, 3D, or nD.

The reason for this is rooted in the inherent limitations of a one-dimensional perspective. A point object in a one-dimensional space has no spatial extent or dimension beyond its single linear dimension. It can only perceive and interact within that one dimension and lacks the necessary degrees of freedom to comprehend or perceive additional dimensions.

To understand higher-dimensional spaces, one needs to have the capacity to perceive and reason about those dimensions. This typically requires having at least as many dimensions as the space being considered. A one-dimensional object lacks the spatial framework to grasp the concept of higher-dimensional spaces, as its entire existence is confined to a single linear dimension.

Additionally, the notion of dimensions beyond its own would be inaccessible to the hypothetical point object because it lacks the cognitive abilities or sensory apparatus to gather information about its environment or analyze spatial relationships in a broader context.

Therefore, due to the inherent limitations of a one-dimensional perspective, the hypothetical point object in a 1D space would not be able to know or detect, by any means, that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces.

TenQ:

Question:
1. Is it reasonable to conclude unequivocally that higher dimensions than 3D do NOT exist in the Universe?
2. What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?
3. Let's assume that by some Stroke of massive intelligence, scientists in the 2D space have perfect scientific knowledge of their space, would this knowledge be adequate in the 3D space?
4. We know that a person in a higher dimension can interact with those in the lower dimensions: is the converse possible?

A)
It is possible for a one dimensional being in a one dimensional world to speculate on the possibility of other dimensions. All it has to do is realise that it exists within a dimension, understand what a dimension is, and that it is just a span within which Change occurs. All that has to happen is for a higher dimensional being to pass through its one dimension. It will experience this as the higher dimensional being suddenly appearing and then disappearing again. If it experiences this then it can extrapolate from its knowledge of its own dimension that other dimension can exist.
As long as one can be aware of dimensionality then it won't much to consider that there may be other dimensions. We are already doing it here. We understand what a dimension is because we live In a dimensional existence, namely SpaceTime and from that we can extrapolate that other dimensions exist.

TenQ's questions:
1.it is NOT reasonable to conclude that only 3 dimensions and Time exist. In fact no scientist does so. Physics is full of talk of higher dimensions. It is impossible (or hard) to explain current observable events without recourse to some higher dimensions.

2. They should investigate phenomena that seem to appear and disappear into thin air. Also phenomena that seem to influence each other from a distance without any force seeming to pass through the established dimensions.

3. The knowledge of 2D may have some help in understanding 3D but there may be some other phenomena unique to 3D that 2D doesn't have.

4. Why not?

PastorAIO:



A)
It is possible for a one dimensional being in a one dimensional world to speculate on the possibility of other dimensions. All it has to do is realise that it exists within a dimension, understand what a dimension is, and that it is just a span within which Change occurs. All that has to happen is for a higher dimensional being to pass through its one dimension. It will experience this as the higher dimensional being suddenly appearing and then disappearing again. If it experiences this then it can extrapolate from its knowledge of its own dimension that other dimension can exist.
As long as one can be aware of dimensionality then it won't much to consider that there may be other dimensions. We are already doing it here. We understand what a dimension is because we live In a dimensional existence, namely SpaceTime and from that we can extrapolate that other dimensions exist.

Living beings, including humans, are complex, three-dimensional organisms that require a certain level of complexity and structure to support life processes. A one-dimensional space would lack the necessary dimensions and structure to accommodate such complex life forms.

Maynmann:

Living beings, including humans, are complex, three-dimensional organisms that require a certain level of complexity and structure to support life processes. A one-dimensional space would lack the necessary dimensions and structure to accommodate such complex life forms.

You make a big presumption here. How do you know that humans are only 3 dimensions. Just because you think and form concepts in 3 D doesn't have to mean that you are 3D. It just means that you can't perceive such parts of your self that are beyond 3D.

A 1D being that understood dimensionality can also hypothesise other dimensions without having to exist in those other dimensions.

PastorAIO:


You make a big presumption here. How do you know that humans are only 3 dimensions. Just because you think and form concepts in 3 D doesn't have to mean that you are 3D. It just means that you can't perceive such parts of your self that are beyond 3D.

A 1D being that understood dimensionality can also hypothesise other dimensions without having to exist in those other dimensions.

when we discuss dimensions in the context of physical existence, we generally refer to the spatial dimensions that we can observe and interact with. These dimensions include length, width, and height, which collectively make up three-dimensional space.

While it is possible to speculate about the existence of additional dimensions beyond what we can perceive, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the notion that humans or any other living beings exist in lower or more than three spatial dimensions. The three-dimensional framework has been successfully applied in numerous scientific disciplines, including biology, physics, and engineering, to understand the structure and behavior of living organisms.

one-dimensional space would lack the necessary dimensions and structure to accommodate such complex life forms.

TenQ:

I've answered this your question:


Relatively to us God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!

If God is described as a physical being, then the question you asked could make sense. If God is NOT a physical being, then every object in ALL dimensions can exist INSIDE Him.

I said:

Acts 17:28:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Relatively to us, God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!

What about RELATIVE TO GOD?

Maynmann:

when we discuss dimensions in the context of physical existence, we generally refer to the spatial dimensions that we can observe and interact with. These dimensions include length, width, and height, which collectively make up three-dimensional space.

While it is possible to speculate about the existence of additional dimensions beyond what we can perceive, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the notion that humans or any other living beings exist in lower or more than three spatial dimensions. The three-dimensional framework has been successfully applied in numerous scientific disciplines, including biology, physics, and engineering, to understand the structure and behavior of living organisms.

one-dimensional space would lack the necessary dimensions and structure to accommodate such complex life forms.

string theory?

kkins25:
string theory?

The argument was on a 1 dimensional BEING.

kkins25:

What about RELATIVE TO GOD?

Your question make no sense!
We have limited perception of things, thus some things will appear in relative form to us

TenQ:

Your question make no sense!
We have limited perception of things, thus some things will appear in relative form to us

Then how do you know God created all dimensions?

PastorAIO:



A)
It is possible for a one dimensional being in a one dimensional world to speculate on the possibility of other dimensions. All it has to do is realise that it exists within a dimension, understand what a dimension is, and that it is just a span within which Change occurs. All that has to happen is for a higher dimensional being to pass through its one dimension. It will experience this as the higher dimensional being suddenly appearing and then disappearing again. If it experiences this then it can extrapolate from its knowledge of its own dimension that other dimension can exist.
As long as one can be aware of dimensionality then it won't much to consider that there may be other dimensions. We are already doing it here. We understand what a dimension is because we live In a dimensional existence, namely SpaceTime and from that we can extrapolate that other dimensions exist.

TenQ's questions:
1.it is NOT reasonable to conclude that only 3 dimensions and Time exist. In fact no scientist does so. Physics is full of talk of higher dimensions. It is impossible (or hard) to explain current observable events without recourse to some higher dimensions.

Im perfectly in agreement

PastorAIO:

2. They should investigate phenomena that seem to appear and disappear into thin air. Also phenomena that seem to influence each other from a distance without any force seeming to pass through the established dimensions.

Theoretically possible except that it is based on the assumption that as an example, we can measure the TOTAL Energy (of a set of objects).
Eg. If the total energy can be measured and there is an event in which we discover that energy isn't conserved, then we can assume that the lost energy disappeared into the higher dimensions. The only problem is that our measurement/calculation of TOTAL energy may just be limited to our own dimension such that the law of conservation of energy will never be broken.

PastorAIO:

3. The knowledge of 2D may have some help in understanding 3D but there may be some other phenomena unique to 3D that 2D doesn't have.

I'm in perfect agreement.

PastorAIO:

4. Why not?

Not in total agreement.
Why?
In Perception:
If an object in 3D enter the 2D space, such will be perceived as just 2D and thus not spectacular except they can view the moment in time when the 3D object entered the 2D (a miracle)
In Reaction:
Except objects in the 2D space can somehow be given ability to cross into into the 3D, there is no way (the converse) the object in 2D can interact with an object in the 3D space. The only exception is if he interacts with what he perceives as a 2D object in his 2D environment (since such 3D object in the 2D space will be seen as 2D.

There is an Exception: (this is a mere theory o: it shouldn't be taken as gospel truth)
What if an object in the 2D space has a dimension of 2.2D or 2.4D etc. Then, he may be able to cross into the 3D space and interact in it.
In the case of the 3D space, what if we have an object that has a dimension of 3.3D, 3.4D or 3.6D: such may be able to interact with things in the 4D space
I think in application as a believer (Please this is not to be taken seriously o)
God created us humans as (for instance) 4D, thus we can be fully 3D (natural man) and 4D (spirit man) in the 3D world. At the fall of Adam and Eve, we were demoted to say 3.1D (not much different from animals) such that the more we walk with God, the more we increase in dimension (ie the more spiritual we become). In this way, the more spiritually alive a person is, the more he is able to interact with the higher dimensions.

Finally, I must insist that this above is just an intellectual musing on the theme "higher dimensions in relation to spirituality" AND it should never be taken as TRUTH or DOCTRINE.

kkins25:
Then how do you know God created all dimensions?

Within our 3D universe
1. Entropy NEVER decreases: thus there must be a time when it was minimum. This means the the 3D universe came to an existence art a point in time
2. Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is impossible in our 3D universe
3. Every Law of Physics and Chemistry we know came AFTER the INFLATION of the Universe

The implication is that SOMEONE/SOMETHING out of the 3D Universe who/which existed before the Laws of Physics and Chemistry created this Universe.
We call this SOMEONE/SOMETHING the "Uncaused First-Cause of Everything": aka God!

A dummy will proceed to ask "Which God?"

The statement "Entropy NEVER decreases" is a simplification of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase over time. However, it is important to note that this law applies to closed or isolated systems, and the universe as a whole is not necessarily a closed system.

This uncaused first cause what are the attributes of it does this uncaused first cause need to have “supreme power”? Omniscience? Does he need to be loving? Kind?
Does he need to have a child?
This uncaused first cause has no similarity to the monotheistic definition of “God”.
Does this uncaused first cause need to be intelligent?
Why do you need to “believe” in an uncaused first cause?
A fool will never know just be shouting “God”.

TenQ:

Within our 3D universe
1. Entropy NEVER decreases: thus there must be a time when it was minimum. This means the the 3D universe came to an existence art a point in time
2. Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is impossible in our 3D universe
3. Every Law of Physics and Chemistry we know came AFTER the INFLATION of the Universe

The implication is that SOMEONE/SOMETHING out of the 3D Universe who/which existed before the Laws of Physics and Chemistry created this Universe.
We call this SOMEONE/SOMETHING the "Uncaused First-Cause of Everything": aka God!

A dummy will proceed to ask "Which God?"

Your argument then conflicts an already solidified argument:

Since entropy is a form of energy measurement, and knowing that energy has no birthday and no funeral date, we can ask the question,

WHAT TIME DID GOD STEP IN? What is God's relationship in the grassroot fundamental principles that allow a universe to form and exist..

kkins25:
Your argument then conflicts an already solidified argument:

Since entropy is a form of energy measurement, and knowing that energy has no birthday and no funeral date, we can ask the question,

WHAT TIME DID GOD STEP IN? What is God's relationship in the grassroot fundamental principles that allow a universe to form and exist..

I was too sure this would be follwed by a STUPID question

TenQ:

Within our 3D universe
1. Entropy NEVER decreases: thus there must be a time when it was minimum. This means the the 3D universe came to an existence art a point in time
2. Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is impossible in our 3D universe
3. Every Law of Physics and Chemistry we know came AFTER the INFLATION of the Universe

The implication is that SOMEONE/SOMETHING out of the 3D Universe who/which existed before the Laws of Physics and Chemistry created this Universe.
We call this SOMEONE/SOMETHING the "Uncaused First-Cause of Everything": aka God!

A dummy will proceed to ask "Which God?"

Did you read:
Within our 3D universe ?
Let's measure your naivety!
1. is it true that ENTROPY never decreases without an external force in our universe?
2. is it true that Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is impossible in our 3D universe?
3. is it true that Every Law of Physics and Chemistry we know came AFTER the INFLATION of the Universe?
Yes or No is the required answer.
if YES, what are you arguing about in the first place
if NO, then you need to go back to study or go back to school


Point of correction:
No Sir,
entropy is NOT a form of energy measurement. Entropy is a fundamental concept in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics that quantifies the degree of disorder or randomness in a system. It is related to the number of possible microscopic states of a system consistent with its macroscopic properties.