Non-existing objects

[KerimF]

To become a professional designer (in electronics) I had to accept notions of non-existing objects.

The geometrical dot is a simple example. By definition, it has no dimensions. But the entire Geometry is based on it; a non-existing object.
Also in geometry, I didn’t mind accepting unreachable objects as well, as the intersection of two parallels at infinity.
And, although the square root of the algebraic number (-1) doesn’t exit, it was given a name/symbol as (i) or (j) in order to use it and simply the solution of many existing real problems.
 
But on the other hand, millions of people on earth live normally without the need to learn, for example, Math and accept (work with) its various definitions of non-existing and unreachable objects.
 
So, obviously, if someone didn’t feel the need to know anything about the Will/Power behind his existence, it is better for him not to think about it in the first place; as all pre-programmed living things do. In fact, the instructions of the Will/Power which is behind the creation of the universe are embedded, since always, in every living cell (as DNA for example). In other words, those who are born of the flesh only can know, by themselves, how to serve the world as they are supposed to do.
 
...

Before I go on, I wish I can hear some serious negative comments because such replies help me update my personal set of knowledge, most of the time. Thank you in advance.
 
Kerim

[chimp3]

What does a geometric dot have to do with the "Will/Power" thing?

[ignoramus]

Why. You're not talking with us, you're talking at us.
You've already got all the answers. What do you need from us stupid atheists?

[KerimF]

What does a geometric dot have to do with the "Will/Power" thing?

Both have no real dimensions, isn't it enough?

But while the former one is about a scientific branch called Geometry (based on reason), the latter one is about another scientific branch (also based on reason, not faith) that not every body has a real interest to discover.

[chimp3]

What does a geometric dot have to do with the "Will/Power" thing?

Both have no real dimensions, isn't it enough?

But while the former one is about a scientific branch called Geometry (based on reason), the latter one is about another scientific branch (also based on reason, not faith) that not every body has a real interest to discover.

So...Geometric dot therefore god?

[Alex K]

As a scientist and educator, I firmly believe that it is crucial that members of our society learn how to think about their place in the world as well as their true origins. The notion that we don't have to educate anyone who hasn't thought about the issue by themselves seems absurd to me.

I also disagree with your somewhat arbitrary criterion what is a nonexistent object. I understand that you got to study a bit of mathematics for your degree and encountered some concepts that seemed alien to you and therefore got the impression that you just then began to work with nonexistent objects, but you've been doing that all the time, and everyone is doing it. Numbers in general. Show me a 1.5 in Nature. Show me a clear-cut cause and effect. We all use tons of idealized abstractions to describe and deal with the world, complex numbers and the axioms of classical geometry were just new to you. They are one more abstract idea we can use to describe reality, e.g. the phase and amplitude of an alternating current. Electrical current is an idealization, it's a bunch of quantum waves whizzing down a crystal, meanwhile the energy is transferred through the electromagnetic field around the wire.

I do not understand the connection to Will, nor what your point is in general.

[Brian37]

To become a professional designer (in electronics) I had to accept notions of non-existing objects.

The geometrical dot is a simple example. By definition, it has no dimensions. But the entire Geometry is based on it; a non-existing object.
Also in geometry, I didn’t mind accepting unreachable objects as well, as the intersection of two parallels at infinity.
And, although the square root of the algebraic number (-1) doesn’t exit, it was given a name/symbol as (i) or (j) in order to use it and simply the solution of many existing real problems.
 
But on the other hand, millions of people on earth live normally without the need to learn, for example, Math and accept (work with) its various definitions of non-existing and unreachable objects.
 
So, obviously, if someone didn’t feel the need to know anything about the Will/Power behind his existence, it is better for him not to think about it in the first place; as all pre-programmed living things do. In fact, the instructions of the Will/Power which is behind the creation of the universe are embedded, since always, in every living cell (as DNA for example). In other words, those who are born of the flesh only can know, by themselves, how to serve the world as they are supposed to do.
 
...

Before I go on, I wish I can hear some serious negative comments because such replies help me update my personal set of knowledge, most of the time. Thank you in advance.
 
Kerim

It never ceases to amaze me, and I have been online since 01, to see all the different word salad people come up with.

This made no sense at all. Maybe you should scrap the mental masturbation and pick up a science textbook and learn something real and factual.

[KerimF]

Why. You're not talking with us, you're talking at us.
You've already got all the answers. What do you need from us stupid atheists?

A human being is given the ability to play before others any role, we may imagine, including stupidity (see, for example, the famous great actors, known as politicians).

In a few years, I will be 70. But I never met a sane mature person who is real stupid. On the other hand, I personally met a few people who played very well the role of stupidity and insanity as well. They were doing it even better than the actors at Hollywood may do.

I mean, being an atheist or else has nothing to do with stupidity.

So I am sorry for disappointing you because I am sure you are as intelligent as I am.
But, being equally intelligent doesn't imply having the same priorities in life, hence following the same paths.

[Cyberman]

Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west; and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

[Brian37]

Why. You're not talking with us, you're talking at us.
You've already got all the answers. What do you need from us stupid atheists?

A human being is given the ability to play before others any role, we may imagine, including stupidity (see, for example, the famous great actors, known as politicians).

In a few years, I will be 70. But I never met a sane mature person who is real stupid. On the other hand, I personally met a few people who played very well the role of stupidity and insanity as well. They were doing it even better than the actors at Hollywood may do.

I mean, being an atheist or else has nothing to do with stupidity.

So I am sorry for disappointing you because I am sure you are as intelligent as I am.
But, being equally intelligent doesn't imply having the same priorities in life, hence following the same paths.

Where do you get the stupid idea "atheist" is about threats of "or else"? 

Scientific method is not a club label, it is a universal tool. It is a neutral filter to weed out personal bias. It is a method of testing, falsification with control groups and peer review. 

No atheist I consider sane makes threats of "or else". We do however question bad claims and bad logic. Some of us are more blunt in doing that than  others. 

If you want to go around claiming every single day, "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup" legally by law you are entitled to do so sure, but it would still be a bullshit claim and others would not be required to remain silent if you keep repeating that claim.

You either have FACTS to back up your claims or you don't. If you have FACTS then those FACTS don't need to be protected and can be subject to review, scrutiny, falsification and peer review.