@X0B35 …
First of all, your nebulous speculations about extra dimensions are precisely that. How do I know this?
Because I’m aware of two basic applicable facts. Namely:
[1] There exists an entire branch of mathematics devoted to the behaviour of spaces with different numbers of dimensions. That branch of mathematics is calld tensor analysis, and if you haven’t studied it, you have nothing to offer here;
[2] Physicists have been applying tensor analysis (more correctly, the advanced variant thereof known as the Ricci Calculus) to such matters as the development of cosmological models.
As a corollary of the above two facts, unless you’ve spent a significant period of time participating in that research, no one here is obliged to do anything other than dismiss your assertions.
Meanwhile:
We’ve seen plenty of blind assertions on this matter by the relevant individuals. What we’ve never seen is any substance to support those assertions.
Mere blind assertion. You have yet to establish, along with those other individuals, that the so-called “spiritual” actually exists.
Oh look, someone else is coming here, purporting to know better what we think, than we do ourselves. This level of hubris will get you nowhere here.
The mere fact that I’ve been able to introduce you to tensor analysis above, should be telling you that in my case at least, your caricature of my thinking is precisely that - caricature. Indeed, tensor analysis formed the backbone of a year of my university studies.
Meanwhile, it appears you haven’t heard of General Relativity, which postulates a 3+1 dimensional spacetime. Thus far, its predictions about the behaviour of the observable universe, have been confirmed, in some cases to 15 decimal places. Many here learned about this before you turned up here.
No, your assertions do nothing of the sort. Because that’s all they are - assertions.
Do learn the elementary concept that assertions do not equal fact, a concept that we keep trying to teach the mythology fanboys here.
Except that unlike your assertions, we have real world observational data to back up this definition. Though as you will shortly discover, I take matters in a slightly different direction in the interests of rigour. Strap yourself in and be patient.
Your attempt to treat this as some sort of “appeal to authority” fails, for the reason I mentioned above.
Which is basically all you have here.
Poppycock. Allow me to run you through the baby steps.
The assertion that a god type entity in its most general form actually exists, is an unanswered question. We know this because if a proper, rigorous answer thereto had been found in the past, said answer would now be part of our mainstream body of knowledge, and no one (other than wilful contrarians or the tinfoil hat brigade) would be arguing about this.
As a corollary, the requisite assertion underpinning that question possesses the status “truth value unknown”, as does every other assertion that has not been subject to test.
Given that the above brings with it certain epistemological subtleties that you are apparently unaware of, your characterisation of people who understand the aforementioned operating principles as having “an exceptionally low IQ” is not merely fatuously wrong, but cheap ad hominem.
Now, time for me to inform you about the somewhat different direction I take, with respect to the matter of what atheism actually is.
I’ve repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, that atheism in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. Indeed, while the exact position taken by atheists on the matter of whether or not a god actually exists is known to be variable, the one universally observed feature of atheists is the very suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions that I’ve just described. As a corollary, I regard the definition I’ve given above as rigorous for that reason.
Now, if you want to tell me, that being suspicious of unsupported assertions from any quarter, let alone from the farcical quarter that is mythology fanboyism, is “ridiculous”, then I’ll simply point and laugh.
There are of course, numerous other issues pertinent here, but in the interest of (unusually for me) brevity, I’ll leave those aside.
Farcially wrong.
Apparently you don’t understand how the rules of proper discourse work. One central rule being that any assertion that remains unsupported by proper test thereof, is safely discardable, as such an assertion adds no useful knowledge. Matters are aided on our behalf, by the fact that the typical mythology fanboy manifestly hasn’t engaged in proper thinking with regard to how a “god” is defined. All too often, mythology fanboys fall back upon whichever platitudinous assertions on the subject are contained in their favourite mythologies, without bothering to ask if said assertions are even meaningful, let alone testable.
Since quite a few of those assertions involve the construction of the “god candidates” contained in those mythologies, as possessing contradictory and absurd properties, they can be dismissed on this basis alone. Recognising this isn’t “wilful summary dismissal”, and your caricature thereof of our doing so again demonstrates that you haven’t thought properly about the issues.
I’ll sit back and await the usual failures in response to the above.