Why We Can't Understand the Christian God That Exists Outside Our 3d Dimensional Reality

[sexyasianboi26]

This is not me rambling about why Atheists are wrong, No. Atheists are correct that god doesn't exist in our reality but scientifically and mathematically, god exists outside of our reality.

In the beginning (time) , God created the heaven (space) and earth (matter) . He created the holy trinity all at once. If time existed before god, then it's a perspective of when? If time was an arrow, who shot the arrow? If space existed before then it's a matter of where? If matter was there before god then how did he create earth? These 3 questions doesn't have a right or wrong answer. The reason why People dismiss god is because he exists outside those 3 forces that governs our reality and universe. He is the unknown, the unexplainable, the equation that doesn't make sense.

Our 3d dimensional consciousness simply cannot comprehend what the 4th, 5th and higher tiers are.

Here's my in depth explanation. There are many examples of 3d dimensions but the most logical and common one to understand is the mathematical dimension. You know, height width and depth. Easy to understand right?

To get a glimpse of the 4th dimension and come to an understanding why we can't understand god who exists outside of the forces that governs our reality, first we must look at the 2nd dimension.

A simple example is by observing your own shadow, that is the surface of a 2nd dimension. If a gigantic sphere passed through the 2nd and 3d dimensions, how would the beings in those dimensions comprehend it?

Well we know that only 2 forces govern the physical reality in the 2nd dimension, length and width. 2d beings (Imagine stick figures on paper) would see a dot then the beings would yell out "Omg a dot just appeared out of nowhere!! Come look! Oh sh*t run!! Its expanding!! Wait its contracting? Now it it's a dot again.. Woah wtf? It disappeared!!". Their minds would be blown away.

If the same object passed through our world, our reality, then it would all make sense. People would see a giant sphere. They would see the color, the height and how massive it looks.

2d beings have no idea what a sphere is and a sphere would not make any sense to them at all but to us it does. If we apply the theory of relativity then that means our minds would be blown if god appeared in our world, it wouldn't make sense at all so people would automatically reject it.

Why? If god did appear to us, we would only see his shadow because we are not consciously equipped to see higher tier of existence. In a logical relative sense, we humans cast a 2d shadow. Every 3d dimensional object casts a 2d shadow. So if we follow this logic then a 4th dimensional being will cast a 3d shadow.

Did I lose you? I hope not. Matter is one of the holy trinities. Our visual perspective is governed by matter. Like I said, if god appeared to us, it would not make sense to us at all! A being that is above solid liquid gas, wtf will he look like? What does a 4th dimensional being even look like? We don't know. Our thoughts and imaginations are limited.

One thing is for certain, you can't describe god in words. The language to describe god...is mathematics.

[RasmusAiken]

Thanks for this thought provoking information. It is said that God has fingerprints all over creation in the form of mathematics and physics constants. These constants are tuned precisely so that life can exist. Paul Davies (Agnostic turned deist, physics professor at Cambridge, etc.): “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see… even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'.… Taken together they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. If we could play God, and select values for these natural quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. Some knobs would have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if life is to flourish in the universe”

[ladsin]

There's a lot of assertions here, but I see no reason to believe them.

As I understand it the 4th dimension is just time, but you must be using it in a different way, like a postulated space that we're not aware of, but again I see no reason to accept your assertion that this actually exists, or that a god exists in it.

"God created the heaven (space) and earth (matter) . He created the holy trinity all at once. If time existed before god, then it's a perspective of when? If time was an arrow, who shot the arrow? If space existed before then it's a matter of where? If matter was there before god then how did he create earth? These 3 questions doesn't have a right or wrong answer. The reason why People dismiss god is because he exists outside those 3 forces that governs our reality and universe. He is the unknown, the unexplainable, the equation that doesn't make sense."

I see no reason to accept the first few assertions, think that the questions are poorly worded, and disagree or perhaps agree (?) on the last bit about why I don't believe. I don't believe because I see no good reason to believe. Your explanation is that it's unexplainable. You claim to know the unknown, and I have no good reason to accept these claims.

Does that make sense?

[sexyasianboi26]

So you don't accept the logic I put forth because you see no reason to believe my theory explaining it can't be believed in the first place? 🤔🙃

It's okay to say you that you want to dismiss it, Im fine with that. But Kindly explain to me how you don't understand a 5th grade style of language. I'm not insulted by any means. I have a certified IQ of 175 and I think I did a pretty good job of writing my thoughts in a level of language where everyone can understand. 🤔 😕

[ladsin]

Oh boy. One of the geniuses of the internet, is your dick 10 inches long too?

I don't accept your assertions because they are unevidenced. Where from my comment did you get the idea that I didn't understand your Take? My entire comment in essence boiled down to explaining why I did not accept your assertions, namely that they are not evidentially true.

[sexyasianboi26]

You must be an uneducated rock dweller to dismiss references to the laws of physics. The visual properties of matter, solid liquid gas. The mathematical dimensions, length width depth. I used these scientifically accepted objectives of truth to backup my claims. And you say unevidenced? Hmmm? Based on stupidity I assume? You didn't read my take, you scanned it, picked the 2nd paragraph and threw your dismissal as an argument.
You need to go lol. 👉 👮 🚗 Bye.

[ladsin]

Humorous surely, but I'll assume that you are serious for another moment.

Where in any of this did you demonstrate that the laws of physics required a creator? Why do cosmologists not agree with you?

[sexyasianboi26]

Another attempt to save face huh? If this was a recipe to make pasta, you're asking the person that made the recipe to point out where does it exactly suggest that it's pasta? 😂 😂. You play the opposition denialist role very well. Bravo 👏 👏🙃

[sexyasianboi26]

I feel like I'm talking to a child lmao. "Why do cosmologists not agree with you? "

Cosmologists field of study is Cosmology. My field of study is theoretical physics. 🙃🙃🙃

[ladsin]

" God created the heaven (space) and earth (matter) " this is a claim about cosmology, and you did not attempt to justify this claim.

You realize that a lot of cosmologists are theoretical physicists right? If this was a Take about how beef is pasta and you just repeatedly claimed that beef is pasta then I would have the same problem. That you did not attempt to justify your claim. This does feel like an infantile conversation.

[sexyasianboi26]

Hilarious attempt number 3.

First of all, why do I need to justify a reference to the bible? Your atheistic stance is a stupid attempt to unjustify religion and god. The fact that billions of people follow that religion gives it a justification for it to be an obserable evidence and objective of truth.

[sexyasianboi26]

Your perception of evidence goes against how the majority of people visually accept an objective of truth. Dismissing the truth that a majority of people follow doesn't make you anything special. I hope you realize that what that does is making yourself look like the product that fell off the production line. An error to be short because you can't comprehend what the rest of the people are believing in. Let alone not being able to understand mathematical equations as observable evidence in the theoretical physics field.

You've already dismissed my logic, what do you need? Did I hurt your feelings 😂?

[ladsin]

Ah, so you are either pulling my leg or incredibly delusional. Either way I'll call it a night. Have a good one.

[sexyasianboi26]

Have a good one

[genericname85]

god is a concept. the concept of a perfect being that is all powerfull and will punish or reward us based on our behavior. It's a concept that we use in order to live a good live, cause if we behave in a way that would please a beeing so perfect, that really optimizes our lives...

it's a psychological tool for introspection that can be used to be your personal best and can also be missused as a governmental tool to subdue others on behalf of.

"The Bible teaches us the path to go to heaven, not how the sky is made."
-Galileo galilei.

the concept of god and the bible are tools that are meant to show you how to act right and how to live a good live that makes you happy. it's not meant to explain the freaking universe...

the thinking that god is an actual thing that "exists" in a place that you just don't understand is just utter stupidity. assuming stuff exists cause you can't know it doesn't is just bare insanity. nothing less.

[genericname85]

don't try to prove god with science. god is not in science. god is in fiction. accept that it is fiction and we can all be happy.

[Gavyn]

If God was such a foolish concept, then why does everyone cling to the idea of a God? The Bible explains that there's a void in human hearts that is left unfilled without God. And honestly, Atheism is a religion and has a God too. The God of Atheism... Atheists are very presumptuous, because their "God" is none other than science and themselves. It astounds me how people can believe that the world and universe is so beautiful and perfectly balanced by chance. You should look up the odds for something like the Big Bang to produce life EXACTLY as we know it. It makes Creation look a lot more likely. Plus, when we have things like DNA and genetics, they are a HUGE indicator of intelligent design. Plus, if the Bible was merely a moral compass, then we should all be able to follow it without error. However, the BIBLE teaches that no man can do what is written perfectly because of Sin. That holds up a lot better, in my opinion.

[genericname85]

@Gavyn where did I say it's foolish? It's a very helpful concept but it is just. A concept. There is no real cohesion between any scientific shit and God. We don't know does not = god. We don't know means we don't know end of story.

[Gavyn]

First, you don't have to say something to imply it. Second, nobody (sane) tries to use God as a crutch for the unknown. The Bible says that everyone will be able to look at the world and look inward and know that He is there. I can honestly say that that's true, because I just KNOW he's there. It even seems obvious to me, it appears so clearly. That's probably the biggest contributing factor to me not being able to understand why people don't believe, since not everyone notices and sees Him the way that I or he or she can.

[genericname85]

@Gavyn that's where I disagree. Good should not be a crutch for what we don't understand. Just realize you don't understand and accept. Don't make up some shit and then take this as fact cause that's what often emerges from that.

If you see it as the concept, that's nothing to scoff at at all. Just don't make it a physical thing that exists in some bullshit dimension Ave act as if it's science. It's not. It's a concept for Personal development. Not some wizard in the sky xD

[Fatslob]

Why dose God hate me? Why are some people born rich, but not me? It's not fair, I hate your post God, I want to set fire to his churches and rape his nuns, but, I don't want to go to gaol, so I don't, but I hate God and I love it when someone decapitated a missionary or raped a nun. Why couldn't God have made me rich. He made PrinDr Charles, the Duke of Westminster and the Baton Rothschild rich, would it have killed him to give me a couple of billion pounfs?

[Deathraider]

One problem: How do we even test his existence if he exists out of reality? I mean we can't study him, but neither could you study a claim that claims an invisible nonphysical dragon exist. And if he does interact with reality, why has this not been well documented?

[sexyasianboi26]

If you haven't taken the first level of physics in highschool, you will have a hard time understanding what Im talking about lol.

[Deathraider]

Oh, I understand. I know about 4D geometry. I'm not convinced. What evidence have you observed?
"If time existed before god, then it's a perspective of when? If time was an arrow, who shot the arrow? If space existed before then it's a matter of where? If matter was there before god then how did he create earth?"
All of these are easy question.
To ask about time before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. As far as we know, it's an arbitrary question.
And the term arrow of time is not literal. The term arrow of time is describing why time seems to only travel in 1 direction.
Everywhere. Since it encompasses space, it began here, there and over there because it's all of space. That's why the term Big Bang is a horrible name at describing what happened. It's an everywhere stretch, though the name is no as catchy.
Answer: He didn't. There isn't evidence for a God.

It's not that we don't understand geometry in higher dimension. It's the lack of evidence.

[Deathraider]

And it's not physics. Physics, or any field of science, has failed to find evidence that there is a 4th spacial dimension.

[sexyasianboi26]

My field of study is theoretical physics. Again, I said god doesn't exist in our reality, he exists outside of it. Is there proof? No. What does the 4th form of matter look like? 4th dimension of color? We can't comprehend these things because our reality is 3d dimensional. The only 4d example is explained through mathematics and computer simulation. Mathematics is the only way to get a glimpse to the 4d reality. We know this is true because the rules of physics and dimensions applies for the 1d, 2d and 3d. And every aspect of life is measured by mathematics someway shape or form. Hence why I suggested mathematics is the language to define god.

Would you be able to understand a 15 feet by 15 feet billboard, my mathematical equation explanation on the 4d dimension and god?

Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist. When the US gov asked him how to make the atomic bomb, he didn't give him papers explaining it in English words. He gave them a shitload of equations.

[Deathraider]

Still doesn't prove anything. I mean what's stopping me from saying "Nope. It isn't a God. It's a 4D Flying Spagetti Monster." Absolutely nothing. But both you and I agree that there is no evidence for a Flying Spagetti Monster, and we both draw the conclusion it doesn't exist. But why would you make a special pleading for God? Furthermore, there isn't observed evidence. It's one thing to say it's in mathematics, it's another thing to observe and confirm it. Of course you say we can't observe God, so why must I think he exist? Maybe the fourth dimension exist. I don't know. But it has yet to interact with the real world, so there's no reason to think it's true.

Yeah, but I want evidence. Has it been observed?

Yeah, but you realized in 1938 a chemist by the name of Otta Hahn actually split a uranium atom with a neutron. He shown the power of an atomic bomb [of course not to the magnitude of the atomic bomb, otherwise he's dead. So you're wrong with that statement.

[sexyasianboi26]

How many times do I have to say it that god doesn't exist in our reality? What your looking for is a justification that he exists and proof in a language that you can understand so you can dissect it, criticize it and dismiss it. Thats not what my take is about in the first place. Do you know how scientifically accepted objectives of truth work? Failures and errors get the same spotlight as the evidence itself. My observation and theory is an 5th grade explanation, without the 2000 number long equation, of why we fail to understand god and the higher tier existence. Somehow you've mistaken it as the real proof, the cherry on top, the real evidence that god exists.

Get your facts straight. I was talking about Einsteins contribution to the first generation of nuclear weapons. Fyi, two atom bombs ended WW2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Aug 6 and 9, 1945. E=Mc2 is why Einstein is considered the father of modern society. 🙃🙃

[Deathraider]

XD. So big question, does something at the scale of Graham's number exist? Does something at a scale of a googolplex exist? Look, just because it's mathematically possible, doesn't mean it actually exist in our reality. There's a difference between on paper and in reality. Look, we explore the idea of what if a fourth spatial dimension exist. But the truth is that we don have evidence that a fourth special dimension exist.

Look, how we find evidence is what ever you're claiming has to be falsifiable. Claiming a 4D being that is unobservable exist with these set of qualities, why should we take your word? Why can't I just make a claim like that out of thin air? I would be just as correct as you are. But the thing is that we can't test your claims. It's committing a Russell teapot fallacy.

I'm saying it's already been shown possible to split apart a nucleus and harness the power and that Einstein also had experimental evidence that confirmed that it was possible to construct a bomb.

[sexyasianboi26]

We simply can't comprehend what the 4th dimension of reality is. Our world, our reality our 3d dimension is made up of 3 forces that govern it. Space time and matter. The mathematical dimension of space is length, width height. Past present future for time. And solid liquid gas for matter. Can you imagine a 4th form or 4d object? You can't. We are restricted by the laws that govern reality but that doesn't stop a computer simulation for showing what a 4d cubical object looks like.

Your visual perspective is limited. Mathematics is not limited. The theoretical logic physicist use is if its true for 1d, 2d and 3d then it means it's true for 4d and above. We can look into the 2d and 1d (quantum mechanics) with no problem because it exists within our dimension. We know 1d and 2d exists because our 3d world cannot exist without it.

[sexyasianboi26]

Truth in the scientific community is not what you think. Most people think that 2=1+1 and scientists will be in tears. Truth and evidence is usually the stuff that DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. In one of Eisteins interview, he even said that e=mc2 was in paper that he threw in his trash can.

A 4d Object is basically a tesseract. If x, y, z is used to explain a 3d cube then t, y, x, z is true for a tesseract.

We know 3 forces govern our 3 dimensional reality. One of them has a hypothetical 4th form, the tesseract. What is the 4th dimension of time? Some physicists believe its duration. The 4th property of matter is something above solid liquid gas. Color dimensions are hue, saturation, brightness, the 4th one is? Gravity is hard to explain to a normal person so I don't use it to project a 4th form of gravity let alone explain the equation for gravitational constant (newtons law)

The unknown exists, we just can't explain it yet.

[sexyasianboi26]

"Claiming a 4D being that is unobservable exist with these set of qualities, why should we take your word? Why can't I just make a claim like that out of thin air? I would be just as correct as you are."

I keep forgetting that you are 16 years old. Does a hypothetical experiment or theory need a VISUAL PERSPECTIVE?

F = Gm1m2/r2 this is one of newtons law. You can't "visually observe" force and the gravitational constant, so with your logic, You also dismiss this scientifically accepted objective of truth?

If scientists and physicists can't visually see force and gravitational constant, how is newtons law accepted then? One word, mathematics.

Like I said, If I showed you the equation that I wrote on a 15 feet by 15 feet board, would u be able to understand it? I don't think so. I tried my best to communicate to everyone, in a language that they can understand. A logic and example that they can understand. And people still don't understand 😂 🙃

[Deathraider]

Well we do know how a 4D object would act with mathematics, and you claim we don't understand it.

Well if a 4D cube were to be pushed though a 3D plane, then it depends on the orientation of that cube. If it was just being pushed on it's side without a tilt, it would appear a cube appeared before disappearing. If it was on it's corner, then I would see a cube getting larger and larger, before getting smaller and smaller. We could use 3D analogies to 2D.

Well there isn't evidence. Mathematics is one thing, studying the natural world is another thing. Until you could crop up some evidence, I assure you that no one will be convinced that it's true just because it could be.
Scientist accept 2=1+1. I mean it's well established and anyone could test it at any point, just that no one was successful. You realize that there are other proposed solutions to uniting relativity and quantum mechanics. And mathematics supports it. But theoretical physicists don't accept it as truth without evidence

[Deathraider]

So your argument is "We don't understand, therefore God?" That's a God of gaps fallacy. Imagine if the Enlightenment never happened. We don't know how the world works, therefore God. Once of the worse arguments ever.

Now you're attacking me as a person instead of the argument, trying to attack my reputation instead of the actual facts. It needs to be a falsifiable hypothesis, otherwise how do we really know?

We could observe it's effects and we have. But what effects have we observed of a 4D God. ZERO. That's what make it flawed.

Newton's Law isn't accepted because of just mathematics, it's been repeatedly tested. Also, you're referring to Newton's law, not his theory on gravity [it would be an equivocation fallacy if you used two different definition of theory in your next argument]. A scientific law just describes what we observe, a theory explains it. A scientific law could be something as simple as "The Sun appears on the East every morning."

[Deathraider]

I understand what you mean. But there isn't evidence that it's the case with our world. I mean you could do a ton of mathematical games to have fun like trying to run a simulation where you changed the Speed of Light, or something else. But at the end of the day, you can't just use that and say "Reality operates that way" without observable evidence.

You claim it's unobservable. No one is going to believe you. I could claim that I have a wormhole and show you the mathematics, but there is no way anyone would believe until I showed them.

[sexyasianboi26]

Theoretical physics is also the study of the unknown. Our observable evidence is explained in mathematics. Our work gives framework for other people. In a research agency, the theoretical physicist is the bridge the connects a biology researcher and a chemistry researcher so that they can understand one another through mathematics.

Job wise, national average salary for theoretical physicist is under 100k. That is through a research agency. Government funding wise? You shouldn't laugh at theoretical physicist. Trump with his 1.3 trillion funding for science, theoretical physics gets a large funding.

Famous modern theoretical physicists like Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson have net worth over 1 million.

Chris Langan, the man with an 200 iq, chose theoretical physics as his field of study. Just saying lol.

[Deathraider]

I know what theoretical physics is, but even Neil DeGrasse Tyson will agree with me that in order for something to be scientifically proven, we need to test their claims and if it holds up, great. I mean Einstein theory of relativity needed to be tested, and it was tested. We observed gravitational lensing. We place atomic clocks on planes and saw they ticked slower. Now tell me what evidence you managed to find to prove such a being exist.

[sexyasianboi26]

You 👏 claim 👏 to 👏 understand 👏 yet why do I have to go back to the beginning? I mean I really don't want to attack you for being illiterate but you're acting like one.

And no Neil would not agree with you.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you. Just like the other guy, you did not read my take, you scanned it. I would have been fine if you said that you don't agree with me and walk away. But you have a dismissive stance yet you are claiming that you are taking my observation into consideration. This is not an honest argument, this is the realm of trolling because you are trying to force your own will by redefining the original definition of my observation.

[sexyasianboi26]

"One thing is for certain, you can't describe god in words. The language to describe god... is mathematics." <---Last Paragraph

In the theoretical physics field, observable evidence is defined in mathematics. That's the last time Im going to say that. If you can't understand that fact then my dude, you simply don't have the mental capacity to understand.

If you told a mentally insane person 1+1=2 and he says I don't believe you cuz there's no evidence, where is the visual observable proof? . If I were you, Id be shocked, I don't know what I would do. Walk away I guess.

[Deathraider]

Yeah, that doesn’t prove that such being exist. I👏don’t👏 know 👏how 👏obvious 👏I👏need👏make👏this. This👏is👏pretty👏basic.

Yeah, he would. I mean if this idea is true, then why have we not observed any effect? If we haven’t observed any effect, why should we think it’s true. By your logic, we’re all Boltzmann brains or living in simulation.

[sexyasianboi26]

You are simply beyond stupid. Unbelievable.

75% of the world population, that's billions of people. Believe either in the christian god or allah. Your atheistic viewpoint does not give you the option to question an objective truth accepted by the majority.

Belief, boy. B 👏 E 👏 L 👏 I 👏 E 👏 F. Religion or science, belief plays a big part on if you believe the truth or not.

You failed to understand my observation on why we can't understand god, for 2 days now. This was not a mytake to prove god existed in the first place. If i showed you my mathematical equation proving god exists, you would not even be able to comprehend the first 10 numbers on a 2000 number long equation. I'm not gonna waste my time translating my equation in a language for you to understand.

[Deathraider]

So you're appealing to majority now? Just because 75% of the population believes it, doesn't make it correct. The majority of people didn't accept the Helicentric model when it was first proposed, and even when evidence was shown. Yet it's correct. The majority of people didn't accept the idea of evolution by natural selection when Darwin first discovered it, yet now it's accepted. The majority of people didn't accept a lot of different stuff and believed their own things all throughout history, yet that doesn't prove whether a certain idea is correct or not.

You committed a logical fallacy in that statement.

Here's the thing though. There's a distinct difference between a belief in a religion and a belief in things proven by science. With religion, you believe things without evidence, like the idea of a god. With science, you test your idea and you gather evidence. Science is so successful because it's able to make reliable predictions that we could verify.

[Deathraider]

It's so successful because it works. If a hypothesis doesn't work, we have to change it. Religion on the other hand, if scientific evidence shows that humans shared a common ancestor with all other living things, as oppose to the creation story, people just reinterpret the Bible. They believe that the words cannot be proven wrong, which that's a dangerous path. If you don't think an idea could be false, what if evidence was to show you wrong one day?

Try me. Clearly I've already identified the Russell's teapot fallacy, appeals to majority, equivocation fallacy, God of gaps fallacy, not to mention trying to use an ad hominem. Your argument is flawed.

[sexyasianboi26]

Your special ed mind can't comprehend the truth. How many times are you going to change stances?

I'm not gonna play this game with you boy. Like I said, you are trying to bring me into the realm of trolling by trying to redefine my observation in your own definition.

I don't think you even know how you yourself accept evidence. Do you want to believe or do you not want to believe? If you spend too much time dismissing the existence of the majority's truth, and you don't know how you yourself can comprehend truth then you are a lost cause. You are the product that fell off the production line, an error to be short.

The way I see it, you want to prove god doesn't exist but in a special ed language for you to understand. You know special education exists within basic education right? It's for people who are not mentally equipped to perceive the fundamentals of truth like belief. You are one of them, end of story.

[steveguitar]

sorry, but no. I don't even have to read the explanation. It's that we don't know. Which leads me to believe that there is no god at all. not ever. Everything we see touch smell and observe is based in chemical reactions

[Anonymous]

HAHAHAHA PLEASE STOP GOD IS ABOVE THE GLASS DOME NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS AN EXCUSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4&t=43s

THE REFLECTION OF THE SUN AND MOON OFF THE GLASS DOME SCREAMS HIS NAME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FmrGYvYcUo&t=23s

[Phanta]

I'm certainly a Christian and say that God exists within the three dimensions. There is no evidence for the existence of any other dimensions.

[John_Doesnt]

The same thing could be said of the Mothman. But without evidence nobody with scientific integrity will believe.

[jacquesvol]

A SF god thus?
A science fiction god?
There wasn't much science when the Bible was written, thus it's fiction.

[Anonymous]

GOD is above the dome
go to Christ cause I can't save you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4

[breakerecho]

Allah exist but there was no such a thing called christian god.

[smølf]

What is the holy trinity, and where is the evidence of the very same?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, there still isn't any evidence that at least implies there is a god, therefore there is no valid reason for anybody to believe in him. Other dimension or not, the fact is we are on our own in this world...

[Redstang88]

That was a whole lot of fancy mental gymnastics that proved absolutely nothing

[Redstang88]

This was basically just a long winded version of “We still don’t have any proof, you have to take care it on unsubstantiated faith alone”

[RedRobin]

Nice take

[Anonymous]

I can't understand religion

[genericname85]

it's basically just a try to answer the question: "how can i live a good life and be happy". that's all religion is for.