The comprehensibility of God

[cormac mac airt]

25 minutes ago, Will Due said:

So there is something you can comprehend.

From your perspective, you comprehend that God exists in an "11-dimensional space time".

I comprehend that 11-dimensional space time DOESN’T translate to 4-dimensional understanding. DO YOU? 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

I comprehend that 11-dimensional space time DOESN’T translate to 4-dimensional understanding. DO YOU? 
 

cormac

 

I sure do, but you seem to keep indicating that God creating the universe in an, or from an 11-dimensional space-time is comprehended by you.

So even though it doesn't translate to a 4-dimensional understanding according to you, it's at least something you keep proclaiming you comprehend about God.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I sure do, but you seem to keep indicating that God creating the universe in an, or from an 11-dimensional space-time is comprehended by you.

So even though it doesn't translate to a 4-dimensional understanding according to you, it's at least something you keep proclaiming you comprehend about God.

If you did you wouldn’t be making the claims you do about comprehending God. 
 

I understand the concept without having to understand the specifics beyond the obvious which is that 11-dimensional space time doesn’t translate to 4-dimensional understanding. You on the other hand keep ignoring the concept so you can claim comprehension of the incomprehensible. There’s a HUGE difference. 
 

cormac

Edited June 5, 2022 by cormac mac airt

[eight bits]

On 6/3/2022 at 8:41 PM, Will Due said:

Of the many places and things that provide insight and comprehension into who and what God is, the most valuable of all in my opinion, is knowing the religious life of Jesus and how he lived it.

Then

Quote

Don't you see that instead of Jesus of Nazareth, the source that goes on and on about how the great dad has set up his son to be gruesomely murdered is a doctrine based on the personal experiences of Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus?

So far as we know, neither Paul nor Philo ever met Jesus, so they are as shaky as the Gospels as sources about Jesus and his "religious life."

Speaking personally, NONE of this is helping me "comprehend God," which as others have already pointed out is a fool's errand anyway.

Edited June 5, 2022 by eight bits

[Will Due]

14 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

If you did you wouldn’t be making the claims you do about comprehending God. 
 

I understand the concept without having to understand the specifics beyond the obvious which is that 11-dimensional space time doesn’t translate to 4-dimensional understanding. You on the other hand keep ignoring the concept so you can claim comprehension of the incomprehensible. There’s a HUGE difference. 
 

cormac

 

As it relates to having an understanding of God, if 11-dimensional space time that doesn’t translate to a 4-dimensional understanding is comprehensible to you, how is it comprehended by you? Since you're not denying that you comprehend that it involves 11 dimensions.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Will Due

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

I agree. One will never comprehend the incomprehensible.

But I have a question for you.

Is everything about God, every single thing, incomprehensible?

 

 

Hi Will

You know what my concept of god is and that is that we have intelligence, the ability to think and I do not find that incomprehensible, I do not need to know why I am capable of thought only that I am thankful that I can.

[Will Due]

13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

So far as we know, neither Paul nor Philo ever met Jesus

 

Yes I agree.

But what does that have to do with the personal experiences of Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus ending up in the early doctrines of Christianity?

Besides, trying to comprehend God using the Bible, without comprehending that "the great dad has set up his son to be gruesomely murdered" bit became a part of the doctrines of early Christianity by way of the personal experiences of Philo and Paul, and not Jesus, is particularly futile.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Will Due

[cormac mac airt]

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

As it relates to having an understanding of God, if 11-dimensional space time that doesn’t translate to a 4-dimensional understanding is comprehensible to you, how is it comprehended by you? Since you're not denying that you comprehend that it involves 11 dimensions.

 

 

It’s BEYOND 4-dimensional understanding of physics and what we ‘can’ understand as ‘existence’ and can only ever remain so, as is anything associated with it. 
 

Your argument about understanding God is akin to one paramecium trying to convey, intelligently, to another paramecium a meaningful explanation of quantum physics. It can’t happen. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

It’s BEYOND 4-dimensional understanding of physics and what we ‘can’ understand as ‘existence’ and can only ever remain so, as is anything associated with it. 
 

Your argument about understanding God is akin to one paramecium trying to convey, intelligently, to another paramecium a meaningful explanation of quantum physics. It can’t happen. 
 

cormac

 

But it's comprehensible to you that God created the universe in an 11-dimensional space time instead of let's say, 13 dimensions.

And that means that that part of the incomprehensible is comprehensible to you.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

But it's comprehensible to you that God created the universe in an 11-dimensional space time instead of let's say, 13 dimensions.

And that means that that part of the incomprehensible is comprehensible to you.

Nope, I use ‘11-dimensional’ as that is what is believed to pre-exist our 4-dimensional existence. Regardless of an actual number it STILL means it and anything associated with it are incomprehensible to our existence. The fact that you wish to continue arguing the point only suggests you wish to continue pretending you can comprehend God. If you’re going to lie about it at least have the decency to make it harder to detect. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I use ‘11-dimensional’ as that is what is believed to pre-exist our 4-dimensional existence.  

 

Then if that's believed, there's a part of the "incomprehensible" that to you, is comprehensible after all.

Why do you keep denying this?

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Will Due said:

Then if that's believed, there's a part of the "incomprehensible" that to you, is comprehensible after all.

Why do you keep denying this?

Knowing that 11-dimensional space time exists IS NOT the same thing as pretending that anything associated with same is comprehensible. You’ve run off at the mouth repeatedly about God being comprehensible when it’s been shown to NOT be possible. Why is that? 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

16 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Knowing that 11-dimensional space time exists IS NOT the same thing as pretending that anything associated with same is comprehensible. 

 

It's not pretending. It actually shows that knowing, is the same thing as comprehending.

Aren't you getting tired of staying on the dance floor with me? I don't think you can hide the fact anymore that your pants have somehow turned themselves inside out. 

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Will Due

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

It's not pretending. It actually shows that knowing, is the same thing as comprehending.

It’s absolutely pretending as you’ve shown no evidence whatsoever of how something originating in 11-dimensional space-time can even remotely be comprehended in our 4-dimensional framework. Which means nobody can “know” anything meaningful about such a deity. 

cormac

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

It’s absolutely pretending 

 

Then why are you pretending that you know (comprehend) that something originating in 11-dimensional space-time can even remotely be comprehended in our 4-dimensional framework?

Why won't you just admit that you have comprehended at least something, even if it isn't true exactly, about what is otherwise and mostly, but not totally incomprehensible?

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Then why are you pretending that you know (comprehend) that something originating in 11-dimensional space-time can even remotely be comprehended in our 4-dimensional framework?

Why won't you just admit that you have comprehended at least something, even if it isn't true exactly, about what is otherwise and mostly, but not totally incomprehensible?

 

 

There’s no pretense on my part. If God/a god originated in or is otherwise associated with 11-dimensional space-time and whatever that entails and we can only ever be associated with 4-dimensional (3 + time) space-time then there is no way we can comprehend the former beyond knowing it exists and JUST that it exists. 
 

BTW, Stephen Hawking himself has suggested that 11 is the highest number of dimensions that can exist. 
 

cormac

Edited June 5, 2022 by cormac mac airt

[jmccr8]

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Then why are you pretending that you know (comprehend) that something originating in 11-dimensional space-time can even remotely be comprehended in our 4-dimensional framework?

Why won't you just admit that you have comprehended at least something, even if it isn't true exactly, about what is otherwise and mostly, but not totally incomprehensible?

 

 

Hi Will

If you were dealt 11 cards and only 4 are face up and you are not allowed to look at the other 7 what do you now about the cards you were dealt?

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

knowing it exists and JUST that it exists. 

 

If there is knowing that it exists and JUST that it exists, then this knowledge falls under the category of something comprehensible (that it exists) about what is otherwise incomprehensible. Thus, in this way, the otherwise incomprehensible in its totality, is at least partially comprehended. 

 

 

[Will Due]

13 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

If you were dealt 11 cards and only 4 are face up and you are not allowed to look at the other 7 what do you now about the cards you were dealt?

 

Jay, you and I better not ever play poker. I'm pretty sure I'd take your money. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Jay, you and I better not ever play poker. I'm pretty sure I'd take your money. 

 

 

Hi Will

I gambled with my life and not my money so not much chance of you getting mine.

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

If there is knowing that it exists and JUST that it exists, then this knowledge falls under the category of something comprehensible (that it exists) about what is otherwise incomprehensible. Thus, in this way, the otherwise incomprehensible in its totality, is at least partially comprehended. 

 

 

‘The former’ I mentioned was in regards to 11-dimensional space-time. Anything associated with it, INCLUDING God/a god we can know nothing meaningful about. Nice try though. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

I gambled with my life and not my money so not much chance of you getting mine.

 

Thank God. As you can see my life is enough trouble 

 

 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

‘The former’ I mentioned was in regards to 11-dimensional space-time. Anything associated with it, INCLUDING God/a god we can know nothing meaningful about. Nice try though. 
 

cormac

 

This is getting tiring. But somehow you can know something about it being 11 and not 12, 13, 18, or 164 dimensions. Your 11 dimensional comprehension, where did it come from? Did somebody tell you about it which you decided to believe? Or pardon me for asking but, did you just make it up?

 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

This is getting tiring. But somehow you can know something about it being 11 and not 12, 13, 18, or 164 dimensions. Your 11 dimensional comprehension, where did it come from? Did somebody tell you about it which you decided to believe? Or pardon me for asking but, did you just make it up?

Stephen Hawking’s papers amongst others in relation to string theory, m-theory and brane theory. I’m rather sure that physicists, cosmologists and the like know far more than you do. 
 

Do you understand any of the above or do you prefer using “Nuh uh” as your answer? 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I’m rather sure that physicists, cosmologists and the like know far more than you do. 

 

For sure but I would probably beat the pants off them in a poker game.