₦airaland Forum

Maynthemayn:
I don’t “believe” spirit exist, i “know” that it does, I’m alive because of it.
Repose is rest.
Moved is Movement.
When you were typing your message, you used repose and movement to write it.
When you hear a music it is because of the balance between repose and movement.
When you see a painting it is because of the balance between repose and movement.
When you walk it is because of the balance between repose and movement.

Of course, it’s different.
You are not your body, you don’t say “i am leg”, you don’t say “i am thigh”.
Your body can get sick but you still “i am”, you can lose your leg but you still “i am”, “i am” exist without the body.

Are you saying that a human being is a Duality: composed of a Body and a Spirit?

What happens at death to the spirit?

TenQ:
I didn't ask you to understand how to BE in 1D or 2D. In other words I ask if you can visualise objects and their movement/interactions in 1D and 2D. To comprehend higher dimensions, the least one can do is to understand first the lower Dimensions

If it is impossible for you to craft a means by which an object in 2D space can project to comprehend/visualise a 3D space, certainly it would be impossible for you in 3D to comprehend or visualise the 4D space and higher

If plants too can have spirits, I guess I am lost to your definition of spirit

I can visualize 1D and 2D in the lenses of 3D, it doesn’t mean i can project to comprehend/visualise a 1D or2D space, the same way i can visualize 4D and higher D in the lenses of 3D, it doesn’t mean i can project to comprehend/visualise a 4D space,
Lower dimension simply means lack of a way of measurement.
The difference between 1D and 2D is one dimension.

What’s the origin of the word “spirit”?
if i need to “believe” there are spirits, I guess I am lost to your definition of spirit.
My own definition doesn’t require belief.

TenQ:
Are you saying that a human being is a Duality: composed of a Body and a Spirit?

What happens at death to the spirit?

Not just human beings, everything has repose and Movement.

Nothing happens to the spirit at dead, the same way nothing happens to the spirit when ones leg is amputated.
You don’t say “i am leg” same way you are not your body.

LordReed:
Both.

Nope, you answer my question. I have answered yours.

Sorry!

I have been answering your questions endlessly, please respond!
I want to hear your OWN views: I'm all ears!

Dream17:
I understand you were making a point but you really creeped me out with this one.

I’ll delete their picture because it’s disrespectful but I just had to illustrate the point.

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

Dream17:
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:


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.



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



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



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.



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.



In the absence of verifiable, repeatable demonstrations that these dimensions do/do not exist? No.



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



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



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.

1. I think you have started with a big wrong foot.
Start with dimensions at 3D and lower. This we can comprehend very well.

It's not all about spirits. Your objective is not to attack dimensions greater that 3 without even looking at dimensions of 3 and below.

2. When I say a person in 1D or 2D or 3D, I do not mean literal person. In technical terms, it just means "an Observer". The observer is a hypothetical person who may be anything from dot, to line, to circle, to sphere.

3. If you were an observer in a 1D world, how will you view your environment? Would you be able to even visualise shapes like circle or rectangle?
How about if you are an observer in a 2D space: you will certainly be able to see and describe other 2 D shapes. Will you be able to comprehend what a sphere is even when it is superimposed on your 2D space?

Forget about 4D or higher or the spiritual for now.


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) why?

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

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

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 TenQ do not lack a belief in Superman or Spiderman , 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.

Maynthemayn:
Not just human beings, everything has repose and Movement.

Nothing happens to the spirit at dead, the same way nothing happens to the spirit when ones leg is amputated.
You don’t say “i am leg” same way you are not your body.

If I say I understand you, it is not true !

Maynthemayn:
I can visualize 1D and 2D in the lenses of 3D, it doesn’t mean i can project to comprehend/visualise a 1D or2D space, the same way i can visualize 4D and higher D in the lenses of 3D, it doesn’t mean i can project to comprehend/visualise a 4D space,
Lower dimension simply means lack of a way of measurement.
The difference between 1D and 2D is one dimension.

What’s the origin of the word “spirit”?
if i need to “believe” there are spirits, I guess I am lost to your definition of spirit.
My own definition doesn’t require belief.

Reminds me of a hypothetical A'Level physics exam.


Question 1:
You are in an airplane traveling at 200km/h at a height of 1.2 km above the earth's surface. Ignoring air viscousity, while g=9.8m/s^2
a. How long will it take before you hit the ground?
b. How many kilometres would you have moved horizontally from the point where you jumped?

Answer:
God forbid bad thing, when I'm not mad. I will not jump from the plane sir.

Is sounds funny isn't it?

It’s not my fault that you don’t, there’s a lot of things scientists don’t understand about science that doesn’t mean science is not understandable.
To understand me you need to be like an empty cup.

TenQ:
If I say I understand you, it is not true !
Reminds me of a hypothetical A'Level physics exam.


Question 1:
You are in an airplane traveling at 200km/h at a height of 1.2 km above the earth's surface. Ignoring air viscousity, while g=9.8m/s^2
a. How long will it take before you hit the ground?
b. How many kilometres would you have moved horizontally from the point where you jumped?

Answer:
God forbid bad thing, when I'm not mad. I will not jump from the plane sir.

Is sounds funny isn't it?

To solve these problems, we'll need to convert the units to a consistent system. Let's convert the speed from kilometers per hour to meters per second.

a. Converting the speed:
200 km/h = (200 * 1000) m / (60 * 60) s ≈ 55.56 m/s

Using the equation of motion s = ut + (1/2)at², where:
s = displacement (distance fallen) = height above the ground = 1.2 km = 1200 m
u = initial velocity = 0 (since you are initially at rest in the airplane)
a = acceleration due to gravity = g = 9.8 m/s²
t = time taken

We can rearrange the equation to solve for time (t):
s = ut + (1/2)at²
1200 = 0 + (1/2)(9.t²
2400 = 9.8t²
t² = 2400 / 9.8
t ≈ √(245.9)
t ≈ 15.67 seconds

Therefore, it would take approximately 15.67 seconds before you hit the ground.

b. To find the horizontal distance traveled, we can use the formula: distance = speed × time.

Distance = 55.56 m/s × 15.67 s ≈ 870.33 meters.

Therefore, you would have moved approximately 870.33 meters horizontally from the point where you jumped.

Dream17:
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

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.

TenQ:
If I say I understand you, it is not true !

Gospel of Thomas 50:1-3.

Maynthemayn:
It’s not my fault that you don’t, there’s a lot of things scientists don’t understand about science that doesn’t mean science is not understandable.
To understand me you need to be like an empty cup.


To solve these problems, we'll need to convert the units to a consistent system. Let's convert the speed from kilometers per hour to meters per second.

a. Converting the speed:
200 km/h = (200 * 1000) m / (60 * 60) s ≈ 55.56 m/s

Using the equation of motion s = ut + (1/2)at², where:
s = displacement (distance fallen) = height above the ground = 1.2 km = 1200 m
u = initial velocity = 0 (since you are initially at rest in the airplane)
a = acceleration due to gravity = g = 9.8 m/s²
t = time taken

We can rearrange the equation to solve for time (t):
s = ut + (1/2)at²
1200 = 0 + (1/2)(9.t²
2400 = 9.8t²
t² = 2400 / 9.8
t ≈ √(245.9)
t ≈ 15.67 seconds

Therefore, it would take approximately 15.67 seconds before you hit the ground.

b. To find the horizontal distance traveled, we can use the formula: distance = speed × time.

Distance = 55.56 m/s × 15.67 s ≈ 870.33 meters.

Therefore, you would have moved approximately 870.33 meters horizontally from the point where you jumped.

I did not intend that you solve the problem. I have actually provided an answer

Answer:
God forbid bad thing, when I'm not mad. I will not jump from the plane sir.

Is sounds funny isn't it?

It is dangerous being an empty cup for a knowledge you can't verify: why?
You will just be filled with junk?

Maybe another time, we can talk of your definition of spirit: as of now, it makes no sense to me. I'll like to be able to visualise your description.

Maynthemayn:
Gospel of Thomas 50:1-3.

Is this what you believe or just a statement?

TenQ:
Is this what you believe or just a statement?

I don’t “believe” it, like i said when you were typing this message you use repose and movement.
Your heartbeat is on repose and movement.

TenQ:
I did not intend that you solve the problem. I have actually provided an answer

Answer:
God forbid bad thing, when I'm not mad. I will not jump from the plane sir.

Is sounds funny isn't it?

It is dangerous being an empty cup for a knowledge you can't verify: why?
You will just be filled with junk?

Maybe another time, we can talk of your definition of spirit: as of now, it makes no sense to me. I'll like to be able to visualise your description.

Does it sound funny to you?

You need to be an empty cup for you to understand the knowledge, then you verify.
Exactly, That’s why belief is nonsense and dangerous ,you need to know then verify not just believe without verifying like you said.

How can you visualize my description when you don’t even know the definition of my description?
That’s like fixing the cart before the horse.

KnownUnknown:
Wrong guess. I didn’t say anything about disproving a god and I didn’t call the Siamese twins a “manufacturing defect” from a “manufacturer”.

You said a god? Why a god? Why not 2?

Before answering those questions, keep in my you have said what you mean by god.

One, two, three or more, no wrong answer.

Maynthemayn:
Does it sound funny to you?

You need to be an empty cup for you to understand the knowledge, then you verify.
Exactly, That’s why belief is nonsense and dangerous ,you need to know then verify not just believe without verifying like you said.

How can you visualize my description when you don’t even know the definition of my description?
That’s like fixing the cart before the horse.

It's like saying your definition of spirit is NOT helpful one bit. Because of that, it is impossible to comprehend or visualise it.

ANYTHING can be poured into an empty cup: even junks. The integrity of the pourer must be impeccable for that to be allowed!

Maynthemayn:
I don’t “believe” it, like i said when you were typing this message you use repose and movement.
Your heartbeat is on repose and movement.

I mean do you believe in the TEXT you posted or it's just a statement!

TenQ:
It's like saying your definition of spirit is NOT helpful one bit. Because of that, it is impossible to comprehend or visualise it.

ANYTHING can be poured into an empty cup: even junks. The integrity of the pourer must be impeccable for that to be allowed!

It seems You have a specific definition of “spirit” in your mind, I gave you the ORIGIN of the word definition, I didn’t form it, it’s fine if you can’t comprehend or visualize the etymology of the word.

When an empty cup is filled, you can’t pour ANYTHING inside it again even if the integrity of the pourer is impeccable.
My analogy of the empty cup is not that you accept anything I say but to learn you need to be am empty cup that’s ready to learn, verify what you learn before pouring it inside you.

TenQ:
I mean do you believe in the TEXT you posted or it's just a statement!

I don’t “believe” in the text i posted, I know the TEXT.

AudioMonkey:
One, two, three or more, no wrong answer.

Because anyone can make shit up

LordReed:
Of course, I even expect to be questioned.

It might not be hard to deduce a god but to believe you are correct without expecting to produce evidence is childish to say the least. There is nothing wrong with intuition but intuition needs facts to confirm its conclusions or else you are just living in fantasy.

I agree with you to a good extent on this but how many are sincere with their deductions to start with?
You clearly deduced your doppelganger son who also ticks all other traits, by intuition is beyond any doubt your own son but being a skeptic, you still desired a DNA test for evidence/fact so you won't be living in fantasy but it only becomes something else if you reject him and all those right deductions, kicked him out and say he isn't your son just because you're yet to get a DNA evidence confirming it.

KnownUnknown:
Because anyone can make shit up

There are made-up shit and there are real shit.

AudioMonkey:
There are made-up shit and there are real shit.

Yea, that’s what they all say but at the end of the day the key word is “shit” as in bullshit.

Wilgrea7:
A great morning to you as well.
Once again, Interesting theory. I can't argue much against your belief, as we both lack evidence for or against the position to either substantiate or refute it. So it more or less falls into the category of an unfalsifiable claim.

However there's something I wanted to point out. When thinking about the idea of something like a 3.2D or 3.4D object, in relation to how you described us humans, I don't think such quasi dimensions can truly exist. Let me try to explain.

Your idea seems to focus not on the actual simultaneous existence in multiple 3d planes, which would make up 4d. Instead, it focuses more on the object's ability to experience these parallel planes by something you called "disposition of spiritual matters". While the term seems rather ambiguous, and more like a blanket term for any sort of claimed unverified knowledge, I won't touch on that for now.

As a simple analogy, take 2 cubes, one measuring 5x4x10 cm, and another measuring 5x4x6 cm. We'll agree that both objects are very much 3d objects, although one is shorter than the other.

Now imagine these cubes were somehow sentient. One might notice that the other seems "longer" than it, seems it seemingly occupies more space in 3 dimensions. But it wouldn't mean the shorter one is any less of a 3d being. Even if a different shape, like a cylinder or prism were to be brought into the equation, they would still be regarded as fully 3d shapes, even though their structure would be quite different.

Similarly, even if we were to assume a 4th dimension exists, and we call it this "spiritual" plane. People's experience of other parts of this dimension by virtue of something like a "disposition of spiritual matters" would only translate to them being able to notice more of the same 4d space, and not necessarily being in a quasi fractional form of 3d.

Just as someone with partial blindless would still very much be a 3d being despite being only able to see a tiny portion of what normal people see, a 4d being would still very much be 4d, despite only having a fraction of the experience other alleged 4d beings have.

I hope I have not over-stretched my analogy of spatial dimensions to spiritual things especially with respect to my use of non whole number dimensions.
It is just my theory for now: I haven't even truly processed it very well. I was just musing on the question if an infinitely long 1D space constraint in one straight line for objects within it can be curved. On short scale, each part of the 1D space constraint is a straight line, but when it curves, it is Actually a 2D space constraint.

This curve is what I typified as 1.1D, 1.3D (a 1D space that have some certain components of 2D space) etc.
Even though I guess I am already overstretching the analogy. I used it because it is possible to have a non-integer dimensions in certain mathematical contexts called fractal dimensions.

Wilgrea7:
I feel like these things just more or less raise more questions about the nature of consciousness, and rightly so. There are several theories on the nature of these things and why they happen, but still, we don't know anything for sure to reach a concrete conclusion.

I'm quite aware of the situations where some people recalled what happened in the room after they were "clinically dead", and even in one story, what was said in the next room. These are quite interesting things, but I still feel like the idea that somehow, this happened because their "spirit" or "soul" somehow wandered around due to some higher dimensional phenomenon, is just one among the many possible attempts, at explaining something we don't quite understand yet.

There are alternative theories, like the idea that consciousness is a thing which cannot exist for a long period of time outside a brain, and disintegrates shortly after death, which explains why the consciousness can pick up certain information about the surrounding, and only relay them after said person comes back to life.

Just like how you can hold your breath under water for a while but eventually need oxygen after some time, similarly the human consciousness can observe these things but requires a brain to translate them or interpret them, or else like a flame, it eventually burns out and fades away.

Once again, there's no definitive proof for any of these claims. And as much as I hate to relegate things to the "we just don't know yet" category. We truly, do not know.

Science thrives where an observable is repeatable and predictable. Unfortunately, NDE does not fall into the category.

Science does not believe in consciousness outside the Brain and even then observables must always be through the sensory organs of the body (eye, ears, touch, tongue and nose).

If just ONE NDE can be shown to have some information of the environment impossible to be obtained through the sensory organs, then we should be humble enough to admit that there may actually exist an immaterial part of a human being that our instruments may not be able to detect. Unfortunately till today, Science does not think there exist some immaterial part of a human being called Soul/Spirit

Wilgrea7:
Not really.
My argument has mostly been that the question of what caused our universe, eventually leads back to a more fundamental question, which is why something exists rather than nothing.

The only possible answers are that something has always existed, and that something came from nothing. Both positions are equally absurd. Because we're left asking the question 'Why?'

Since we know our universe had a beginning, you posit that higher dimensions exist, and at the highest dimension, something has always been existing. You call this something a "God". You're arguing in favor of the "something has always existed" position.

I only brought up the idea that if we agree that what caused the universe cannot be subject to the laws within the universe, then BOTH positions, are equally feasible in some sense. Or equally absurd if you will.

I'm not advocating for either. And we've both agreed that our understanding of our current universe would be insufficient in comprehending these things. So to me, they are both equally unfalsifiable claims, and it painfully, regrettably and shamefully leads us to the uncomfortable phrase "we don't know"

From the scientific point of view, it would be impossible to answer your question of why something exists rather than nothing

Has something always existed?
Science tells us that NO!

For an item to be something or a thing, it must have mass, occupy space and have energy. Light, Electric or magnetic field for instance are NOT called things (so they can't be something, they are called fields). Although, I don't think that any kind of field can exist without matter.

If we can agree that the definition of something must include matter, then the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything cannot truly/strictly be a "SOMETHING".

The Uncaused First-Cause of Everything had ALWAYS existed: it is a necessary condition for everything else to being. Can the Uncaused First-Cause be defined as a THING: on what basis would that be done?



You've been a Charm: have a beautiful night rest!

KnownUnknown:
Those are basically unanswerable questions.
Why something instead of nothing?
Universe is just the totality of what exists whether we perceive it or not. For example, the totality of what scientists that study the nature of what we call the universe know is approximately 5 percent. Most of what we call the universe are things they don’t understand so they term them “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
Gradual and painstaking accumulation of knowledge over millennia is how we come to understand the universe. Maybe one day we will accumulate enough knowledge to determine whether it has a function, maybe but probably not.

if there is a totality of what exists,then what is the totality of what does not exist? something instead of nothing is unto another thing. just any other thing ,which can be anything. any question u ask is unto another thing or another way to exist . nothing has no reason to exist actually so there is no totality of existence.

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:
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?

Maynthemayn:
I don’t “believe” in the text i posted, I know the TEXT.

I see that you are a disciple of Buda!

Ill like to close for the day.
Peace

Dream17:
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?

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:
I see that you are a disciple of Buda!

Ill like to close for the day.
Peace

People perish because they lack knowledge not beliefs as stated in your collection of books you call “bible”.
When you know something, you don’t need to believe in it again, lack of knowledge creates beliefs.
You yourself said believing anything without verifying is DANGEROUS.