What/Who created God?

[leo-rcc]

You can't harm me with that! I've been built with logical paradox-absorbing crumple-zones!

Are they like Heisenberg compensators?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Are they like Heisenberg compensators?

Fun fact: These things might actually be possible.

Science!

[fr0d0]

---

Yet we can know what two dimensional and timeless are to know what we're aiming to achieve. It's that idea that we're exploring. They may not be an absolute known, but stemming from them are many theories considered to be rational. Or you're calling a lot of theories illogical.

What? Who is 'we'? What is this group 'exploring'? What theories?
There are no absolutes truths. What theories are you talking about?

---

What? What? Who is 'we'? Humans What is this group 'exploring'? Timelessness; extra dimensions What theories? 10 dimensions; String Theory
There are no absolutes truths. I agree What theories are you talking about? see above

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yet we can know what two dimensional and timeless are to know what we're aiming to achieve. It's that idea that we're exploring. They may not be an absolute known, but stemming from them are many theories considered to be rational. Or you're calling a lot of theories illogical.

With your most recent post, I'll then attempt to re-answer your previous post.
First off, the most modern form of string theory that I'm aware of, M-theory, doesn't come from our knowledge of two dimensions or timelessness. It's based on the idea that the most basic components of atoms are extremely tiny vibrating membranes.

In fact, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

What it aims to explore is the theory of everything - uniting all of our understanding of physics from disparate areas of physics research into a unified whole - particularly quantum physics with astrophysics, which are traditionally incompatible with one another in many respects.

It has nothing to do with the concept of timelessness or your concept of god. It's not a vehicle to 'explore' so much as take the knowledge we have and try to fit it all together into a cohesive whole.

Further, M-theory is still largely unproven. It's a very exciting area of research because it gives so many interesting mathmatical and physical answers as to how things may work given the framework of what we already know, but no one has conclusively proven M-theory to be an accurate depiction of how things work.

Even so, I need to reiterate that it prooves nothing about your concept of a god.

What? What? Who is 'we'? Humans What is this group 'exploring'? Timelessness; extra dimensions What theories? 10 dimensions; String Theory
There are no absolutes truths. I agree What theories are you talking about? see above

[fr0d0]

The particles in string theory need to be extra dimensional to work. That's my point against yours : that we don't know of alternate dimensions and therefore can't comment on them. (I'm not proving God here, because the concept of God falls outside the realm of science)

If it's logical to assume extra dimensions beyond our capabilities, why is it illogical to assume a timeless being able to act in a time line?

I thought you had a clear logical point to back up tavarish's statement. So far I don't see it.

[Spencer]

The most impressive part being that you did this all from the future to have such great effect on the past.

I try not to toot my own horn, but when you're right, you're right.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

If it's logical to assume extra dimensions beyond our capabilities, why is it illogical to assume a timeless being able to act in a time line?

Because if M-theory were proven as more than being just conjecture, then that does imply the former but not the latter of the statement above.
Just because extra dimensions may exist, it doesn't mean something lives there with unprovable properties (timelessness) as being able to do something that science doesn't recognize as possible (affecting the 'time line').

[fr0d0]

We don't require science to recognise it as possible. We are, after all considering a metaphysical being not limited by physics here. What we do require is clear logical reasoning why it shouldn't be possible. If there is no reason not to consider it, then we can continue to use the consideration in our conjecture.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

We don't require science to recognise it as possible. We are, after all considering a metaphysical being not limited by physics here. What we do require is clear logical reasoning why it shouldn't be possible. If there is no reason not to consider it, then we can continue to use the consideration in our conjecture.

You already have a clear logical reason to believe that such a being has never existed and never had any foot print on this world in any way, sense, or form but you've decided to believe that this being exists based on no actual reason to do so.
Niether I, no anyone else, needs to prove that such a being doesn't exist because that would imply that there is some reason to believe he does. What needs to happen is that the people who claim such a being exists do so for no reason whatsoever and need to provide evidence to prove that to be the case.

[fr0d0]

And that's another subject for another day/ thread TheDarkestOfAngels.

You interjected above with a point of logic. Please back that up or concede that you were wrong so the rest of us can move along.