₦airaland Forum

KnownUnknown:
Why do you consider any of these evidence at all? They are not evidence of anything at all talkless of being good or bad.



But why subject them to critical inquiry in the first place when they are just wild claims with absolutely no evidence.
You mentioned Bible stories as “bad evidence”. Do you subject all mythologies to critical inquiry or just certain ones?



Evidence is evidence. Bad evidence is no evidence at all because they don’t proof or support any assertions.

I'm quoting this post as a reminder to address it later, as I'm very busy right now IRL. I'll respond to this, hopefully in due time.

This is going to be a rush response, as I'm very busy atm and possibly in the nearest future. The last two weeks have been the most freedom I've had in a long time.

AudioMonkey:
Now that you made yourself clear, that's fine but it still didn't change the fact it was contradictory in the original post.

Audiomonkey, please read this very well: It was NOT a contradiction. If you have the patience to read and the honesty to understand my point of view, I can show you why (pay special attention to the bolded and capitalized words or sentences).

Some concepts are UNFALSIFIABLE, and this includes some concepts of deities. UNFALSIFIABLE means that even if a claim, assertion or belief were false, we cannot conceive of a way to FALSIFY them. In science, these are sometimes facetiously referred to as "not even wrong", since knowing a claim is wrong teaches us something, and unfalsifiable claims teach us nothing. The word AGNOSTICISM describes such a concept of deity, and is defined as the belief that nothing in known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. I should note here that some claims and conceits of deity are FALSIFIABLE. Now I disbelieve all UNFALSIFIABLE claims, as to believe them all would involve violating the law of non-contradiction, and thus be irrational, to believe some would must involve bias and thus be closed minded. So I withhold belief from all unfalsifiable claims, and remain agnostic, as I must do. My point was that I didn't think an atheist worth his salt would make a claim to knowledge they knew they could not support or properly provide evidence for.

You could have simply admitted though that seemed contradictory but this or that was the point you wanted to make.

It did not seem contradictory, you misunderstood it, and then misrepresented it. If you would take the time to get to know me, you'll be surprised to discover that I am usually more than happy to acknowledge an error. I do note though that despite you using several logical fallacies in your arguments, you never acknowledge any of them? How do you imagine that is perceived? Also, it is quite unfortunate that you seem to have this assumption that long posts are verbose only by virtue of their length. I'd say that's a very shallow way to approach a debate. I personally love reading long posts, just as much as I love writing them.

And talking of obfuscation, you seem to have avoided my questions yet again. I asked you if you were a Christian and if so, if you could demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities. In the absence of evidence, what is the most compelling reason or argument you have for believing a deity exists outside of the human imagination?

Take your time before responding. I am a very patient reader (well... mostly ).

AudioMonkey:
Exactly as I predicted, you successfully poured another piece crap in my mention.
You keep wasting your time thinking you can evade your blunder by hiding behind enormity of irrelevant texts. No one is asking you about all those craps you keep talking about.

What I ask you is much simple, stick to that.
Rephrase/explain in clear simple terms what you mean in those two places I quoted. That's the only thing I'm expecting from you in your next reply, nothing else. But if you can't do that, simply tell me you can't instead of wasting my time with all your endless crap like I care.

I have 3 questions for you:

1. Are you blind?

2. Are you an illiterate?

3. Is English your first language?

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist".

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

The first one is a sweeping generic claim about all deities, the second one deals with a claim about a specific deity or deities. It takes a woeful grasp of English not to understand that as well, and this explains a lot. You wouldn't be a teenager by any chance would you?

^^^
This was from my most recent post. You're a very dishonest person. Your question has been answered THREE TIMES now. Read that paragraph over and over. If English is not your first language, give your phone or laptop to a reliable friend to help you translate it to your local language. Why do you see a problem? Strong atheists make this assertion and some of them aren't worth a shit. How is that a problem for you? Other atheists are very specific about which god or gods they are referencing. How is it your brain can not wrap around the concept?

Lol. How's this for beating about the bush?

AudioMonkey:
All you so called rookie atheists

Haha, let the trolling commence . That, sweetheart, is an ad hominem fallacy.

atheists don't cease to amaze me.

Thank you.

Can you now see the reason I've been avoiding any debate?

Yes, facts can present nightmares for unevidenced superstition. Why not pray to god to give you the answers to defeat the nasty heathens like me? Or you could go debate people who share your unevidenced superstition, in a soothing circle jerk of like (closed) minded people.

I only maintained my discussion with LordReed because I've known @LordReed as old member here and he's now like a veteran in the field. He is not confused. He is consistent and articulate. And you can see my discussion with him did not run into any problem.

Then why don't we invite LordReed to trail our correspondence so far and find out who's truly confused, hmm? Since you value his opinions that much. I'm familiar with LordReed and I imagine he -- and anyone reading this thread who doesn't struggle to have his brain assimilate simple concepts -- will have a grasp of English sufficient to understand what I said. The error is yours, hilariously.

You just made another big blunder by saying I lied.

Woe is me.

How is lying and rephrasing a statement the same?

When the rephrasing is a dishonest misrepresentation of the original statement? If you read my post slowly and carefully you will see I actually pointed that out for you.

For example, "I know him not."
Rephrased into "I don't know him."
What lie is in that?

This example is not a lie, it's a rather hilarious straw man fallacy, and of course since you're comparing it to your earlier lie it's also a false equivalence fallacy, So well done sweetheart, you managed to use 2 different logical fallacies in one claim. Now, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, and if you can't, why not just present the most compelling reason you think you have to believe a deity exists outside of your imagination.

Now, kindly interpret your statements in quotes below by yourself. This time around don't hide under enormous irrelevant text or beating around the bush. Straight to the point.

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist".

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

The first one is a sweeping generic claim about all deities, the second one deals with a claim about a specific deity or deities. It takes a woeful grasp of English not to understand that as well, and this explains a lot. You wouldn't be a teenager by any chance would you?

Like I said, don't deviate or hide under unnecessary, irrelevant explanations. Go straight to the point.

Talk about irony. Anyways your request has been granted. Your turn: If you are a Christian, as concisely and accurately as possible, explain why you believe a deity exists outside your imagination, I will be pointing out any unevidenced assumptions that violate Occam's razor, and any arguments that violate the principles of logic, like the common logical fallacies you have used relentlessly so far.

Or don't you have any more relevant points/arguments to make? Why are you here? Are you just here to take the piss, whine and moan about atheists, play frivolous semantic games and pussyfoot around?

AudioMonkey:
That is a big contradiction and the more you try to argue it shows why it may not be worth debating someone like you.
Initially you said, no strong/tangible atheist would assume/mean/say gods don't exist.
Later you said strong atheists assert God/gods do not exist.
I rephrased your statements so you can be less confused about your own statements.
If you don't comprehend your own context and own words, how will you compressed mine. That would be a waste a time.

===============================

You said:

I rephrased your statements

So basically you lied, and misrepresented what I originally wrote. I wonder what you think such obvious duplicity will achieve. This was the phrase used in my quote, which you highlighted:

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist."

^^^^
In this first case, you will observe that the comment is a sweeping generalization: "No Gods exists".

"No X worth his/her salt" is a turn of phrase. It seems you do not understand what it means. I was clearly making reference to an atheists' capacity as a debater. Therefore, you would be well advised to avoid rephrasing it on anyone's behalf. When you do that, and you rephrase it to say something it didn't originally say (like this time); it is a form of plagiarism/academic dishonesty; even if done on accident.

When I used "Strong" Atheists here:

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

It was me listing atheists categories, not talking about their debating capabilities. The assertion here is meant to be specific: "This specific god/God does not exist". It doesn't take a genius to decipher this fact, so it leads to me to question what truly is your motive here. If you come across statements you don't understand, instead of trying to cast aspersions on me and poison the well, trying to call my character into question -- just so you can avoid the discussion, why not just simply ask for clarification?

If you read my latest response to KnownUnknown, you will notice that I also said that atheists who engage in sweeping generalizations and make comments like "No gods exist" often get grilled (attacked) by their fellow atheists. The assertion requires a burden of proof. As the idea of a god, both existing and non-existing is unfalsifiable (given all we currently known) -- the claims are both unfounded. Unless of course you think you can support one of the positions. I certainly can't and I have never met a person capable of doing so. If that was not clear previously, MAKE IT CLEAR NOW. There was no contradiction. When I assert a god does not exist, I am being very specific. It appears you do not comprehend the subtlety of language, or of logical dilemmas.

AudioMonkey:
Alright son, thank you for introducing yourself in my mention with this nice contradiction. That should give you a quick answer to who's confused between the two of us.
Especially @bolded makes the contradiction more hilarious.

There was no contradiction.

1. I gave you specific criteria for when an atheist might take the strong atheist position.

2. I stated there are two types and I know no one in one of them. Do you posit that I know everyone who is identified as atheist?

You are cherry-picking just to be argumentative. Both positions were adequately clarified. Maybe you should take your time and read my post again.

So, I ask, what's your stand about god? So we can know how to proceed or not with our discussion.

What God are you referencing? I fluctuate between agnostic atheist and antitheist depending on the god claim. If I ever bump into a god claim that can stand against critical inquiry, I will have to admit that it probably exists. That does not necessarily mean I will worship it. But first -- you'll have to demonstrate that your god exists.

KnownUnknown:
May I ask the atheists if they have seen “bad” evidence for the existence of god or gods?

Yes, there is plenty of bad evidence -- biblical stories, personal testimony, miracles. Etc… It's terrible evidence, but it is evidence of a kind. None of it holds up to critical inquiry. Good evidence is that which comports with reality. It can be observed, measured, tested, and independently verified. It is the same for me as it is for anyone else in the world. We can make objective claims about good evidence. It's not very difficult. Bad evidence can be easily challenged. Old stories, opinions, un-evidenced assertions, violations of logic, erroneous claims, and the like.

If one believes in a god that is not subject to the rules and regular function of the world, then how did s/he notice it? Is this god a simple mental construct that has no manifestation in reality? It is as useless as Santa or Unicorns -- a made up story. It makes no difference at all if I believe it or not. Now, if this god does manifest in this world, I would certainly like to hear about it. Wouldn't it be amazing to find such a god? Here is a question for you though: how would you tell a God from a sufficiently advanced civilization of aliens? I don't have the means of recognizing a god. How about you? How would you recognize a god if you saw one? How would you know it was not a highly evolved being with technology far superior to your own? Are you asserting that you have the ability to know what a god is? How do you know that?

What if contradiction is a character trait of this god? This god could very well be amusing itself by giving contradictory instructions or this works could be a project to determine how beings with intelligence would act given contradictory instructions.

Fine. Can you make an argument for that god? The result is the same. There is no reason to believe in a god that is self-contradictory. A god that violates the laws of logic is by definition illogical. What reason is there to believe in this god? It is the same as believing in a god that simultaneously exists and does not exist. It manifests as dry water. You are welcome to hold such an opinion but it certainly does not qualify as good evidence.

The god could also be a disinterested observer who has run this world experiment countless times so that he knows what will happen 99.99 percent of the time and it only acts when that 0.01 deviation from norm occurs.

God could be anything you imagine, right? No problem. What reason is there to believe in such a god? A disinterested god who is not there is no different from a god who is not there. There is no good reason to believe in such a god. And given the attributes that you mention… come on… how in the hell are you going to even notice such a being exists? Again, you have merely created a story and have no means of verifying any such thing in a concrete way. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence ~ Hitchens' Razor

What plan do you mean?

I did reference the Christian God. Did you miss that? Check the following passages: Psalms 33:11, Jeremiah 29:11, and Proverbs 3:5-6

Does the Bible refer to the same god in all the stories?

No. Both God and Jesus change througout the books of the bible.

Why should justice and mercy be mutually exclusive? How is mercy a suspension of justice?

How is this not logically evident? Justice is necessary to society. A society without justice will fall to corruption and disorder. If all thieves were shown mercy after their thefts and forborne any punishment, the judicial system would have no power to enforce a law against stealing. One must decide who is deserving of mercy. In our own society who gets mercy from our judges, police officers, women, and some other groups? We call it unjust, but it is a system within which we live. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

The atheist just seems to forget that in order to say “god(s) does not exist” he has to have a god in mind in the first place.

Not entirely true. You are painting with a broad brush. I frequently visit places like r/atheism, and any atheist making a stupid claim there will generally be dragged across the carpet. Not just God claims by the way. You might want to check around that corner a bit and see what happens when an ignorant atheist tries to join the ranks. They get destroyed.

A god exists wherever the person making the claim wants it to exist. He may have no knowledge of it but he has the idea.

Lol. Having an idea of a god is just that: "Having an idea of a god" . Ideas do not manifest into reality just because you have them. If that were the case, you would have just lost your head because I imagined a dark knight slicing it off. Imaginations do not qualify as evidence for anything.

A god that exists for no time in no space is everything.

What universe are you living in? Everything is the set of all existent things. A god that exists in no time and no space is not a part of the set of existent things. It does not qualify. It is nothing more than an imagination until you can demonstrate how it comports with reality.

Gods exist as ideas borne of movement and thought.

All you have said is "Ideas exist". So what? An idea of a God does not justify or bring into existence an actual god. I can imagine you eating a plate of shit, that does not mean it actually happened.

AudioMonkey:
Exactly the point I been making.
After you deduced I exist while you seek more evidence to reinforce the deductions but at the same time you keep insulting me, affirming I don't exist and propagating different grounds why I don't exist. Isn't that so contradictory, messed up and confusing? That's the reason why I tell you it's not a case of all these folks "sincerely" seeking for any evidence. If you do in your own case, you can only speak for yourself.

In an atheist community, under the generic tag of being atheist, you'd discover different sub categories - the 'sincerely' confused/neutral ones in doubt, who're 'sincerely' seeking 'sincere' answers.
You'd see ex theists now antagonists.
You'd see those who just hate to hear you say 'God', perhaps hurt and bitter because of hard life and bad experiences.
You'd see the jesters who don't GAF nor care to know if God exist or not but they tease/bait you to give them evidences so they could have something new to mock and laugh about.
You'd also see those who don't like the restrictions in religion or they see religion as the root cause of world's chaos, they think their lives have been full and great without any God.

You are a little confused. First, there are two distinct strains of atheistic thought. Second, I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist." What most atheists assert is the following; "I have never seen good evidence for the existence of God or gods".

Now, when an atheist makes the assertion that a god does not exist, they are willing to adopt the burden of proof. For example, the God of the bible is so contradictory that it can not exist. It is all knowing, but gives you free choice. That is NOT possible. It is either he knows what you are going to do before you do it, and he is all knowing -- and, you don't have free choice... or he does not know, in which case he is not all knowing and the Bible is lying and god does not have a plan. This god does not exist. The bible god is also supposed to be "just" and "merciful". If the bible god is just, he can not be merciful. Mercy is the suspension of justice. This is a direct contradiction and this god does not exist. So, when an atheist makes a claim that any god does not exist, you might want to ask them which god they are talking about. I will not tell you that your god does not exist until you make a logical contradiction or posit something you can not possibly know. A god that exists beyond time or space for example -- you have absolutely no knowledge of any such place. A god that exists for no time in no space is nothing. All thoughts and movements are temporal.

There are two brands of atheism:

1. Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

2. Weak Atheists/Agnostic Atheists: They assert there is no good reason to believe in God or gods.

Most atheists I know fluctuate between these two positions depending on the definition of God being used. So, when an atheist asks for evidence of the god claim, he or she is willing to be swayed by argument, examples, or evidence sufficient to support the claim. They are not automatically rejecting the claim but rather, measuring the evidence. And as soon as you use Pascal's Wager, an argument from contingency, a first cause argument, some form of presuppositionalism, or any common argument that has been debunked for hundreds of years, you are going to be laughed at for your ignorance. You have confused "sincerely seek" evidence with "sincerely sought" evidence. Most atheists are at the END of their journey. They have spent years seeking. If you are a Christian trying to convert some atheists, you may be telling them anything they've already heard a thousand times before. They already know what you are going to say before you say it. It looks like rejection without understanding to you because you have not yet worked through all the arguments.

Are you a Christian? If yes, then why don't you do this: Post your very best evidence for the existence of the God you believe in and let's see where it goes. It is not parading the God discussion in my face that I mind. I actually like honest debates and honest requests for information. It is parading the same rotten shit over and over and over in front of my nose, even after you're corrected, that I mind. It is positioning yourself like you're somehow superior to me because I'm lacking belief in a god, that I mind. It is the intellectual dishonesty of the Christian apologists that I mind. Every atheist worth his salt will always give you a chance to debate honestly. Me personally, I can even let the dishonest ramble on for days before finally ignoring them. I guess I just keep hoping they will open their eyes. What about you: are you willing to have an honest conversation or do you just want to play the victim card on behalf of Christians (if you're not one)?

Do you believe in a god? If yes, define the god you believe in and tell us why.

AudioMonkey:
How can someone claim to seek evidence for God while they continue looking/advocating evidences against same God and deride/ridicule same God concept?

Why would you think those are mutually exclusive? Any evidence that contradicts or refutes a claim would be salient in the decision to withhold belief from it. I don't always ridicule claims, even when they are idiotic or poorly thought out, but some people invite such ridicule on their claims when they persist or repeat them in the face of evidence or argument that demonstrates them to be so, or when they exhibit arrogance, hubris and dishonesty from the very first post. I try to be patient, but I am after all only an evolved ape, or human if you prefer.

How can someone claim to seek evidence for God but affirm he doesn't exist and tag those who say otherwise delusional?

Well I can't speak for other atheists, but the decision to accept a claim as likely true would be based on a critical scrutiny of all data provided by those advocating the belief.

How can you seek evidence for God when you're already sure he doesn't exist

I am an atheist and this is not my position. I simply don't believe in any deity or deities. How sure I am that what is being claimed is untrue would vary according to the individual claims. I am always sceptical of all claims, and disbelieve all claims presented with insufficient or without any objective evidence, and I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and also must remain agnostic about them.

Like I said, some just hate this whole God stuff...

Some aspects of religion are deeply pernicious and deserving of antipathy. This may be hard for you to grasp, but nonetheless you don't get to tell others how they feel about any beliefs.

...not like they sincerely seek any evidence

You're simply wrong. I subject god claims to exactly the same standard of scrutiny and belief as all other claims, this is the very definition of open minded.

they blaspheme...

Blaspheme is a word theists often use to try and bully those who don't share their beliefs, and ringfence those beliefs from criticism. You can demand respect for yourself, but not for anything you believe. This is simply bias. Blaspheme means no more to me than someone insulting flat earthers or mermaids would to you.

they get mad when you keep parading the God discussion in their face.

Well naturally, how would you feel if atheists knocked your door, or screamed atheism from pulpits, and threatened you for not being an atheist?

TenQ:
Since you can't respond to questions intelligently, your are hereby ignored until you exhibit some maturity.

Good night!

Please explain what is immature or unintelligent in that post? It seems to me you have simply evaded a question, because you know the answer does not support the superstitious and unevidenced conclusions you are making. However a more salient question that you can't answer is why anyone should believe your unevidenced assumptions deities demons and angels are hiding in an unseen dimension. This is pure fantasy on your part, and again you have admitted you have only your own subjective opinion to support this assumption. You argue like someone who has no understanding of logical discourse. Everytime you make a claim, and someone challenges it, you immediately assume that they are making a contrary claim. Just as with your erroneous claims about atheism, you don't seem to understand that one can withhold belief form a claim, without making a contrary claim. Though to be fair this is a very common error among many of the religious apologists I've encountered.

So, coming back to these points:

Christians have always spoken about God, Angels, Demons and the Spiritual Realm which in this case is at dimensions higher than 3 dimensions.

Leaving aside the evidence for this extra dimension, your assertion that deities, angles and demons are hiding in there is pure unevidenced assumption. You have admitted yourself you can offer nothing but a bare subjective claim to support it. You might as well be claiming it's full of unicorns or dragons for all the credence the claim carries.

Atheists understandably think that any dimension higher than 3D is a figment of imagination.

I am an atheist and I don't think this, I believe what is supported by sufficient objective evidence, if I disbelieve something, this does not necessarily mean am able to make a contrary claim, since this will carry an epistemological burden of proof, that I may not be able to satisfy. Atheism makes no claims, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, though atheists as individuals may of course make claims.

It must be a mistake.
Time is not a Spatial Dimension!
The emphasis was on spatial dimensions

Maybe next time, try not to claim you didn't say X, when you clearly said X? I mean you can see how that can be extremely confusing; right?:

Original post before modification

TenQ:
Note:
Time is NOT a dimension: time is a measure of intervals between events in 1D, 2D, 3D , 4D space

Your response when I called you out

TenQ:
I never said that time wasn't a dimension perhaps you can quote where i said that?
I wouldn't even make a statement like that!

TenQ:
If you ask me, his madness is getting to the level of insanity!

Read his post, your questions have zero relevance, and again you have simply posted a knee jerk response that doesn't seem to understand anything he posted, and simply consists of a string of questions that are straw man fallacies. You really need to read more carefully before responding. If you want to start a thread on gender dysphoria and identity then do so. You introduced the concept merely to challenge the fact that dictionary definitions reflect common usage, and not what you personally want words to mean. Just as you did with the word atheism.

TenQ:
If you had just followed the logic rather than repeat a rhetoric...

Your posts are riddled with known fallacies in informal logic. Please explain very specifically where JustAnotherGuy's post violated any principle of logic, as I can see none? You asserted there could be no objective or physical test for your deity, hence as JAG pointed out, any claims by theists that a deity intervened in the physical world, miracles and prayers for example, would be false by your own rationale. It is your claim that is pure rhetoric, as your posts including so many logical fallacies are by defection - irrational, and your only response to this fact is to use ad hominem fallacies whenever I point it out. Priceless…

TenQ:
And when I accuse you of being emotional, you take it unkindly. Can't you address issues without name calling and slanderous remarks?

You are the one taking things personal here. The truth is that your arguments so far strike me as dishonest - even though it might not be intentional on your part. And whenever I try to call your attention to how you come across, you start throwing tantrums.

Check carefully, you haven't addressed the question at all!

Check carefully, I have:

Dream17:
Now you seem to be claiming that dogs both can and cannot believe in a deity, so lets clarify. I don't believe that a dog has the ability to comprehend the concept of deity, if this is the case then it follows they lack such a belief, and thus are atheistic, and they need not have reasoned or made any choice in order to lack such a belief. I on the other hand am also an atheist, as I lack belief in any deity or deities, and I have made choices and used reason to arrive at that lack of theistic belief. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief, I suggest you get over it - since you have ignored my multiple requests to explain how you think choices and reason negate me simply lacking belief in any deity or deities.

Please try learning how to read to understand your co-discussant, as opposed to merely reading to make any kind of response to them.

a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.

Well that's an unevidenced subjective claim of course, but if it were valid, then they quite demonstrably would lack theistic belief.

you think animals can form a belief about a deity

Er.. I made no such claim.

Is it a pretty ironic use of an ad hominem fallacy that there is a difference between Animals having a Belief and Animals NOT having a Belief in Deities, ?

No, your ad hominem assertion had nothing to do with that, here it is again then:

TenQ:
You talk too much without thinking

Do you have difficulties following a simple line of conversation? This is an honest inquiry and not an insult by the way, because I can't fathom how you continuously manage to misread and misunderstand my posts so easily. Please learn to take your time reading my posts before you offer a response. Don't just type a response because you want to be argumentative for the sake of it - as that will be debating in bad faith.

TenQ:
Emotional outburst!

You're projecting again.

You called me a Liar

Well, your claim was a lie. Here:

TenQ:
Let's put your definition to test:

The definition of atheism is not mine, it is the dictionary definition, compiled from common usage. Now to be fair to you, you may not have intended to obfuscate matters and tag it "my" definition. But it was still a lie nonetheless.

Quick question: You do know how dictionaries are compiled don't you?

Does EVERYONE agree with the definition of Woman as
'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. '

Lol, I never said EVERYONE, and I never brought the definition of woman up at all. You did! Do you not know what the word "MOST" means, or that dictionary definitions reflect what MOST people think a word means? Are you starting to see a pattern here? Can you now see how someone might tag you as a liar with posts like this?

Your claim: (is like)
Anyone who doesn't agree with this stupid definition is a Liar!
Think please.

Oh dear…

1. Your claim that the definition of atheism I provided was "my definition" was a lie. Intentional or not, it was a lie. If you honestly don't intend to ascribe claims to me that I didn't make, then I truly apologize if calling you a liar hurt your feels.

2. You are the one insisting your personal subjective definition is right and the dictionary is wrong .

Here then is the dictionary definition of the word atheism.

Atheism
noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It doesn’t dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.

As I explained, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. Do you know what this fallacy means? I have hyperlinked an explanation for you here. The burden of proof lies with your claim. I have made no claim.

There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being He is not subject to the natural/physical laws.

You don't simply get to assert this, you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence. I could as easily claim all mermaids are invisible, and cannot be detected by any empirical means, then insist you disprove they exist. Would you really accept this as evidence for mermaids? I think not. Thus the bias of your position is as manifest as your irrational repetition of this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You brought your claims here, you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for them, or I will remain disbelieving. And then, we will go back and forth.... and back and forth on this until we clock the 1000th page .

I said objective evidence is not possible for spiritual things, you state the contrary (in red)

Another lie, I did not make any claims about what is and is not possible for spiritual beings, since I don't believe they are possible until someone can demonstrate they are. Again existence is defined as what is objectively real. If you can offer nothing approaching objective evidence for your deity, then I don't believe it is real. Why would I?

It is your turn to prove that no spirit dimension or deities exist (please don't forget to recognise that Christians say they are spirits)

No it isn't, since I have not claimed they don't exist, only that I don't believe your unevidenced claim they do, and you are again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to try and irrationally reverse the burden of proof.

In your wisdom, every non objective evidence is a figment of imagination.

I started with objective evidence as that is how existence is defined.

Existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

If you insist your deity exists outside of your imagination, then demonstrate something to support your claim.

For the record TenQ, you also apply this to all the deities you don't believe are real, and not just deities either. There is no objective evidence that unicorns exist. I assume you don't believe unicorns are real?

It just shows how myopic your reasoning is

Again you are skirting into ad hominem insults, and need I remind you that you brought your beliefs here because you wanted a debate. You are the one applying a standard to your deity you don't apply to others, so calling me myopic for applying the same standard for belief to all claims is also pretty hilarious .

Looks like you just read a book on Fallacies in Arguments and in every opportunity, whether true or not

By all means point out anywhere where I have falsely claimed you have used a common logical fallacy, otherwise this rhetoric is pretty weak.

you just want to show you've been to the library.

Ad hominem fallacy, again. Why does it bother you that I go to the library? Haven't you ever been to a library before? . Please leave the personal insults alone. If you disagree with a claim or argument then say why.

TenQ:
You talk too much without thinking

That's a pretty ironic use of an ad hominem fallacy, since you are the one making contradictory statements, and again don't have the integrity to even acknowledge your error, or what it means for your rationale. This is not the first time your arguments have violated the law of non-contradiction either. Physician heal thyself…etc etc. Is it sinking in yet that your arguments are relentlessly irrational?

You sent back from work your car to your house through your driver
1. Can your beloved dog assume that you are in the vehicle and start wagging it's tail and jumping up and down in anticipation?
If the answer is yes, then your dog has a belief you are in the car (until proved wrong)
2. Does your beloved dog have ANY notion of the existence of any kind of Deity? Do you even think this is a possibility?

Your desperate straw man questions about dogs are irrelevant of course. Address your own contradiction. Atheism is simply a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, whether it is arrived at by reason and choice or not, it is simply a word that described the lack or absence of theistic belief.

Oh dear... it's not going very well for you, is it?

Of course it really isn't going very well for you. The question is, can you see why?

TenQ:
Let's put your definition to test:

It's not MY definition, it is the dictionary definition, dictionaries are compiled based on common usage, so you're telling lies again.

Animals lack or have absence of belief in ANY Deity! Does this make animas Atheists?

By definition it would make them atheistic.

Lack
noun
the state of being without or not having enough of something.

Absence
noun
the non-existence or lack of.

Now you seem to be claiming that dogs both can and cannot believe in a deity, so lets clarify. I don’t believe that a dog has the ability to comprehend the concept of deity, if this is the case then it follows they lack such a belief, and thus are atheistic, and they need not have reasoned or made any choice in order to lack such a belief. I on the other hand am also an atheist, as I lack belief in any deity or deities, and I have made choices and used reason to arrive at that lack of theistic belief. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief, I suggest you get over it - since you have ignored my multiple requests to explain how you think choices and reason negate me simply lacking belief in any deity or deities.

It takes cognitive abilities required for abstract thinking for one to have a belief system such as atheism or theism.

We are not talking about a belief system, we are talking about the lack or absence of one particular belief. Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

There is no objective evidence that will satisfy you for Christians never defined their God as physical but a spirit.

You could have stopped at the first 5 words, as it is clear if you had any evidence, you'd have presented it, instead of this pitiful straw man fallacy.

Your question has been answered.

No, it hasn't. You refused to to even try and present any objective evidence, whilst implying it exists. That is not an answer and it is dishonest. You yet again tried to insert a cryptic appeal to mystery in the form of another question in response. You either think objective evidence exists or you do not, if you do then present it, if not then have the integrity to say so, and possibly present the most compelling reason you think evidences a deity.

TenQ:
Keep your words direct to the point!
When a dictionary defines a word in deliberate error to please a group such as the LGBTQ and Atheists,

You are becoming a rather atrocious liar in this discussion. This is not how dictionaries are complied, although this ludicrous conspiracy theory of yours does rather explain a lot. The dictionary definition of atheism is what most people understand the word to mean. That is how dictionaries are compiled, and my own atheism is the lack of absence of belief in any deity or deities. Leaving that aside, you have yet to explain how arriving at atheism through choice and reason negates it being a lack or absence of belief in any deity, the definition of the word disbelief supports this as well, and is synonymous with atheism, you know what a synonym is right?

What/Who is a Woman?
Me: An adult Biological Female
Some stupid Dictionaries: 'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. '

Words can and do change their meaning over time, dictionaries are compiled based on what most people consider a word to mean. They are not influenced by people who sulk that those words don't reflect their own subjective personal beliefs.

Even though I've answered you several times...

You have not answered me candidly at all. Instead, you have evaded the question with a dishonest straw man, implying that objective evidence exists but that I would not accept it, and without presenting anything.

... the question is silly! It's like asking repeatedly: show me a square circle?

You are saying rubbish. We know objective evidence is possible, it exists for all manner of facts, you have simply used a false equivalence fallacy. Though ironically no objective evidence would be possible for something that did not exist outside of the imagination of humans who believed it to be real, which is food for thought.

There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force the spiritual into the physical.

That is always true for non-existent or imaginary things of course.

Let's test your rationale: "There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force unicorns or mermaids into the physical". Hmm, are you seeing the own goal yet? Your desire to keep the deity you imagine is real away from objective or critical scrutiny, has just placed in the category of non-existent things.

existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Ooops!

Every evidence of the spiritual is SUBJECTIVE to the individual persons Experience!

Thank you. Well that wasn't hard was it? Why not just say you have NO objective evidence for any deity? Of course I cannot base belief on the unevidenced subjective opinion of others that they have experienced something. This would be irrational, as I should have to soon acknowledge contradictory claims. What's interesting is your obvious bias here, since you also wouldn't accept the identical claim from other people, if for example someone claimed they saw a mermaid or a unicorn. Or of course all the innumerable claims like yours that people make to have experienced other deities.

There are always two ways to prove any point:

+The claimant can make a proof
+The disclaimer can also make his own proof.

Since I can't get you a physical proof, perhaps you can.

The ball is in your court: Give me your objective proof that the spiritual realm and deities do NOT exist?

This is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (an argument from ignorance). I also have never made any such claim, nor is it an accident that my own rationale, unlike yours, stops short of making unevidenced claims. You sought the atheists here out to make your claim a deity demons and angels exist, the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you have admitted you have no objective evidence at all - only your own subjective opinion to have experienced something.

My bad I said:
I didn't create anything, therefore I ask you for evidence of your claim that NOTHING created everything?

Can you please articulate and present your exact claim with respect to the above subject?

I made no claim that nothing created everything, your question is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy popular among religious apologists, in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. I don't know how the universe originated beyond the big bang, no one does. If you want learn the latest thinking on that I suggest you read what the best theoretical physicists have to say. However I do not believe any deity using explicable magic did it, as this is wholly unevidenced, and of course the claim has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

By the way, I know how to use the quote tags. I just prefer it this way because it's more convenient for me, thank you.

@KnownUnknown

I registered this account newly using temp-mail. It's an alternate, not a main. My main account is uche40. For some reason I haven't been able to log into that account.

You can email me at rothwellgeneva@gmaildotcom

Retracted

TenQ:
It must be a mistake:
Time is not a Spatial Dimension!
The emphasis was on spatial dimensions

It was an obvious contradiction you made, and not your first. Now lets recap using bullet points since you like them:

• Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it’s in any dictionary.

• Lacking theistic belief can involve choices, but it also need not.

• What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that deities, demons and angels exist?

Please take note: Point #3 is a question, and I asked this after you made your initial claim, and before you asked me any questions, so if you refuse to answer this honestly then you can not expect me to reciprocate.

TenQ:
Even Animals can form a Belief!

V.S

TenQ:
a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.

Oh dear... it's not going very well for you, is it?

TenQ:
Being emotional doesn't help you out one bit.

Lol, I wonder why you keep insisting that I'm emotional. I'm curious as to what should be making me emotional in this conversation? This is the second time you've repeated this assertion, and given how you've approached this discussion so far, it's starting to seem more likely that you are projecting your own feelings on to me rather than providing an objective assessment. You obviously have very strong opinions about how certain words should/should not be used - strong arbitrary opinions that contradict the dictionary definitions at that. That's good on you. Any expectation, however, that I (or others) will go along with your opinions on those usages is not binding. You're certainly welcome to be as adamant about it as you like. That just doesn't seem to be working though. Out of curiosity, how much longer do you plan to keep it up?

I asked you a basic question

As I have asked you, repeatedly, to demonstrate any objective evidence for any gods. Until you do me the courtesy of even acknowledging my question, I am disinclined to answer cryptic and irrelevant questions you are firing at me, especially since it is in response to my question, but without providing any answer.

What is your response?

I asked you a question, you ignored it and refused to respond. Then you asked one of me, that has no relevance. That is not debating in good faith. You seem to have the religious apologist's penchant for reeling off unevidenced claims and then ignoring questions that examine those claims.

There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being and there exist no physical proof of God because He is not subject to the natural/physical laws. Since there exist no physical proof, then the ball is in your hands

What a spectacularly unintelligent claim. You have claimed a deity exists, also angels and demons, so the burden of proof for your claims is entirely yours.

I didn't create anything, therefore I ask you for evidence of your claim that NOTHING created everything?

I have made no such claim. This is yet another rather clumsy straw man fallacy.

It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.

Another straw man, I have never claimed to lack belief in anything, only to lack belief in any deity or deities.

What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice...

Yawn. Once more then, they are not mutually exclusive. Seriously, how long do you intend to keep up with this farce?

TenQ:
You are just being emotional as you've said nothing
You want me to adopt a definition that lacks merit!? Sorry m!

I expect you to dress in a football jersey if you are going to play football. If you want to discuss a definition of atheism don't hide it in the pretext of another argument. Start a thread, give your definition, and see how it holds up. As long as you are using the term incorrectly, you are the one not having a conversation. You have created a straw man. No one needs to take that nonsense seriously.

If you check closely, we now dont know who a Man or a Woman is based on the illogical redefinition of words and terms.

Well if you checked closely, in the real world, you'd most likely get a slap in the face and a restraining order

There is something common and unique with all who have the capacity to lack a belief. They are intellectually weak!

So your lack of belief in mermaids is because you're intellectually weak? I'd find that more compelling if I thought you understood fully what a lack of belief is, but I am dubious that you do, in fact one might say I lack the belief that you do, as you are arguing that one cannot arrive at a lack of belief through reason and choice, which is frankly absurd. It is also a little early for you to be throwing ad hominem fallacies around don't you think?

No need for long essays: a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.

So they would LACK such a belief then? Dear oh dear

It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.

I don't have a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension, and I lack belief in any deity or deities making me an atheist, ipso facto your claim is absurdly wrong. I also don't think lack or absence of belief means what you think it does.

Which is more appropriate to describe you?
Do you believe Corithaze is a Nigerian Professor of Engineering?
OR
Do you Lack a belief that Corithaze is a Nigerian Professor of Engineering?

How does a cryptic name I don’t recognise evidence your obviously erroneous claim here?:

It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.

Just look at how you truncated what I said just to create your strawman?

I didn't create anything. I asked for evidence of your claim.

What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

They're not mutually exclusive, stop repeating yourself and read more carefully, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, even if one chooses not to hold such belief.

HOWEVER, by reason I have come to an understanding that Superman and Spiderman are inventions by American Authors in comics and lately in movies for entertainment purposes all based on fiction.[/i]

Ah. Of course. BEFORE you did your research you were CONVINCED of Superman and Spider-Man. You had to look behind the curtain in order to "form" your disbelief. I get it. Well done.

Check this again:

Does it arouse you listening to yourself talk?

What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.[/i]

Oooh. Shiny colours.

It is clear that you are out of your element and have nothing fresh to add to the topic. So, since you have succumbed to ad nauseam repetitions of unsupported subjective opinions, and YOU created this discussion, I am going to hold my belly while I point and laugh .

Do you lack a belief in deities because it was imposed on you or it was a personal choice you made?

Irrelevant, since either way it would still be a lack of belief.

Do you know any adult self proclaimed atheist who does not know that theists exist?

A very clumsy no true Scotsman fallacy there, do you think we won't notice the words "self proclaimed" in your fallacious representation? Just so you know, they would still lack belief in any deity or deities. No one has claimed a lack or absence of belief never involves choices or reasoning, only that it need not do so, and that even when it does atheism is still the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. This is the common usage of the word. It also describes my atheism, which is the lack or absence of any belief in any deity or deities. The distinction is important as it has epistemological implications.

I note without any real surprise that you make no attempt to answer my request and provide evidence for your god?

TenQ:
I never said that time wasn't a dimension perhaps you can quote where i said that?
I wouldn't even make a statement like that!

Lol, come on now. This is a bare faced lie you just told. Read here:

Note:
Time is NOT a dimension: time is a measure of intervals between events in 1D, 2D, 3D , 4D space

https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm#123224891

I thought we were having an honest conversation. You've just cornered yourself with this cheap maneuver and I'm running out of benefits of doubts to give you. If you continue this way, I might just have to end this conversation.

TenQ:
This is far more advanced than this discussion o.

Spacetime combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.

You will note that throughout, I didn't even mention or treat time as a dimension. I concentrated on just spatial dimensions.

One of my criticisms was that you said time wasn't a dimension; because time is a dimension in modern physics. Could you address that instead?

TenQ:
1. I think you have started with a big wrong foot...

... and I think that's a subjective opinion of yours. Unevidenced nonetheless.

...It's not all about spirits...

Surely, reality is not at all about "spirits", you have yet to demonstrate such a concept is even possible.

On the definition of Atheists as "people who lack a belief in religious gods" I find the definition ridiculous (even though it seems to be a standard definition "big and important" atheists have adopted)

Well that's a very unfortunate remark that you've just made. I find your "finding" ridiculous, as will anyone with a rudimentary grasp of language, and access to any dictionary. In fact it's almost as naive a claim as it is dishonest. You either argue honestly and use the standard definitions that we are using or you continue to create a straw-man and argue from that position. I (and most atheists will agree here I'm sure) don't particularly care about your straw-man. We are the atheists, this is our definition. I don't need you to define my position. I'm also not impressed with the way you've completely ignored my request for evidence that connects any dimension with 'Spirituality."

Only Babies, an animal or a person with an exceptionally low IQ can lack a belief on a matter.

Besides being a shoddy variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy, I have no real problem with this. We agree all babies, animals, rocks, and trees, lack a belief. However, It is not true that a rational mind can NOT lack a belief. The objective evidence suggests newborn babies don't start to form memories and therefore beliefs for several months after birth. But meanwhile, since you seem to think subjective anecdotal claims have merit, here is one for you: I know my earliest memories support this. So that's check and mate, by your own rationale.

Before you crucify me, let me ask you these questions answer is YES or NO and WHY
1. Can a dog be said to lack a belief in a Deity?

We have no evidence that dogs believe in deities. There is no connection between a dog and belief in a deity until that connection can be evidenced. Do you understand the NULL HYPOTHESIS? If you are to assert a dog believes in a deity, you would have to provide evidence for the claim. If you make an assertion to the contrary, you would equally need to provide evidence that dogs no believe in deities. There is no evidence supporting the claim that dogs believe in gods, and all evidence seems to point to the contrary.

2. Is it true that babies lack a belief in any deity?

Same as above. We have no evidence of babies believing in gods. If you make the assertion, you need to provide evidence. We have no evidence that a baby has the ability to believe anything. On the other hand, we do have the Church. Any baby that is not baptized burns in hell. Now, I am not sure why babies are born in sin and separated from God until they are baptized. I think it's a rather silly idea, but it's their idea and not mine. According to religions, babies are born atheists and without belief. They need to be saved or they burn in hell.

It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.

Evidence please? I don't believe you.

What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

Wrong. Atheists are not "rejecting a proposed thing". They are rejecting ARGUMENTS for the proposed "thing", which may or may not exist. The time to believe in the existence of anything is "AFTER" it has been demonstrated to be true. Theists have not met their burden of proof, ergo, there is no reason to believe their claims. Also, ignoring your bizarre attempts to tell me what I should think - which is an arrogant behavior that I've come to expect from a lot of Christians - your highlighted paragraph is a false dichotomy. One may lack a belief-thought choice, and one may also lack a belief without making any choice, this is self evidently true, since one cannot believe a claim that one has no conception of.

I TenQ do not lack a belief in Superman or Spiderman

Ok. So then, you believe they're real?

HOWEVER, by reason I have come to an understanding that Superman and Spiderman are inventions by American Authors in comics and lately in movies for entertainment purposes all based on fiction.

So you do NOT in fact believe they are real then? So you do in fact LACK belief they are real then?

I'll give you a clue here: one can lack belief either because one has no comprehension of that belief, or because one has determined to withhold belief from any claim. You seriously need to look up "False Dichotomy" fallacies on Google.

TenQ:
No problem!
Anytime you are chanced. It's a field of many unknowns and we all seek better understanding.

I agree. On the subject at hand, I think this link might be helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3+1_spacetime

KnownUnknown:
A god. Why one? Why not a Siamese twin type of god? The Holy Double!

I understand you were making a point but you really creeped me out with this one.

TenQ:
.... Mind you, as a Christian, I also see higher dimensions in other perspective: I don't claim my position is the reality, but it helps to explain the supernatural in natural point of view

Lol, I don't see how it helps. Wouldn't it just be easier for you to demonstrate miracles the way Jesus promised in John 14:12, Matthew 17:20, Mark 16:18 so that you can demonstrate the existence of your god? Yes? No?

Hi TenQ,

I've finally gone through your original post and I have to say - your postulations are seriously problematic. But before I continue, I have to ask: what makes you think spatial dimensions have anything at all to do with something called "Spiritual"? It seems to me like you are beginning with a faulty definition, right off the bat. Now, I haven't yet gone through the entire posts and replies from other users throughout the 10+ pages of the thread so far but I noticed a lot of "Flatland" mentions and references, so I think it's safe to assume that most here are familiar with it. Moving on, I'll be quoting relevant excerpts from your wall of text.

Now you said this:

A person within a one dimensional space within a 3D space is unaware of the fact that he's in a 3D space.

So have you ever seen a person in 1D space, TenQ? Whatever it was, it would be ludicrous to call it a person. Your points so far appear to be a mere rehashing of "Flatland" as opposed to original thoughts or ideas.

Measurements of area or volume or height, displacement, velocity, volume, area density make sense to him, however, he cannot comprehend the meaning of anything outside the 3D

Lol. Why not? You managed to comprehend it, apparently. Why can’t someone else?

Christians have always spoken about God, Angels, Demons and the Spiritual Realm which in this case is at dimensions higher than 3 dimensions.

I think it would be helpful of you to demonstrate the connection between the hypothetical 4 dimensions and anything at all called "spirit".

Atheists understandably think that any dimension higher than 3D is a figment of imagination.

This is a very common misconception by the way, and I would like to caution you now before we go any further. Atheists are not synonymous with actual scientists. Generally, the basic requirement needed to become an atheist is a lack of belief in religious gods. There are atheists who believe in the supernatural just like you apparently do. It is the SCIENTISTS who regard String Theory as useless, not ATHEISTS as a collective. Also, it is other SCIENTISTS who attempt to demonstrate its' utility. I'll give you a hint here: String Theory is an hypothesis. It isn't actually a theory.

Time is NOT a dimension: time is a measure of intervals between events in 1D, 2D, 3D , 4D space.

I wouldn't call Time ".... a measure of intervals between events". It is more accurately ".... how we measure the intervals between events". Besides I don't think your definition of Time is entirely accurate in the context of modern physics (Special Relativity!). As we get new information, our methods of measurement change. You can't conclude anything from a hypothetical construct that begins with undefined terms and something called "spirituality" that is an equivocation error of dimensions. The existence of higher dimensions is a topic of ongoing research and debate in the physics and mathematics communities. While there is some evidence to suggest the existence of higher dimensions, such as in theories like String Theory and Kaluza-Klein Theory, it is important to note that there is currently no definitive proof.

Is it reasonable to conclude unequivocally that higher dimensions than 3D do NOT exist in the Universe?

In the absence of verifiable, repeatable demonstrations that these dimensions do/do not exist? A resounding Yes.

What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

I wonder why any reputable scientist would take any important considerations from me, a non-scientist, pertaining to their line of work.

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?

Are there really scientists that exist in only two dimensions? How do you come by this information? Why do you think this?

We know that a person in a higher dimension can interact with those in the lower dimensions: is the converse possible?

I'm afraid I'm not aware of this. And in response to that, I'll just cue what I asked of you earlier: I think it would be helpful of you to demonstrate the connection between the hypothetical 4 dimensions and anything at all called "spirit". If you can demonstrate that anything called a "spirit" exists in a higher dimension, I believe we can have a more fruitful and interesting conversation.

Nice topic, @TenQ. I find the subject of higher dimensions to be very interesting. Hopefully, I might contribute to this when I'm less busy and have read the OP properly. Bookmarked.