What would Atheists consider adequate proof of God?

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

2+2= 4 is not a lie, stop trolling.

He isn't trolling, he actually believes what he wrote. Stop palming your face.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Obbe

He isn't trolling, he actually believes what he wrote. Stop palming your face.

Feel free to explain the lie.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Feel free to explain the lie.

Why are you asking me to?

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Feel free to explain the lie.

Yeah, I told you why the lie doesn't need to be explained. All we teach our children is that 2+2=4, a truth not quite complete (mostly, it is not in context, nobody screams about this but if they were to do so it would be a complaint about education. My chemistry teacher always progressively taught his students the next lie that we needed as there were always constant developments and the theory was complicated (resulting, in his opinion, in no apparent 'need to know' unless requested).

The issue is basically that 2+2=4 necessitates a whole philosophy of math--but which way to go? A 'necessary omission'. Anyone screaming about this issue is probably talking about the same thing as somebody who has a problem teaching that "seeing is believing" rather than "believing is seeing", they are just on different mental planes and so we have difficulty intuiting about math while the opposite is true for where the potential of your mind is to be placed once you have harmonized some basic qualities in your personality and some expectations. Success builds on itself and you would never find this out by just listening to the 'lie' that everyone from totse knew was the system and the mainstream. Back then it all depended on whose lie you focused on and if you believed their lie then it was your opinion, if wholeheartedly, it was your truth. This is what is meant by the phrase as I have told you, this and the demonstration of the solution of the law's equation at the point of natural grace, self-awareness, and right feedback, which are just aspects of positive states useful for manifesting.

[nshanin]

Some of us are receiving a world-class Socratic education in mysticism from the community on here. Few discussions are as inspiring of such oodles of nonsense!

[crazzyass]

So 2 + 2 = 4. Got it. Thanks.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

So 2 + 2 = 4. Got it. Thanks.

So crazyass do you understand what nshanin was saying? Do you even care about what he meant about the lie? Are you just attempting to reassert your own position without actually acknowledging anything he wrote or explaining why you disagree with it? If so, why? Just to get the last word, or some other reason?

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Obbe

So crazyass do you understand what nshanin was saying? Do you even care about what he meant about the lie? Are you just attempting to reassert your own position without actually acknowledging anything he wrote or explaining why you disagree with it? If so, why? Just to get the last word, or some other reason?

He is free to demonstrate what he means, but until he does it's just empty words.

and means



It's an undeniable facet of the universe. Hell, not even this universe, any universe, the omniverse. It's a facet of existence. For it not to be true, nothing must exist. So if he can refute that, he better have a hell of an argument.

[Akagi]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

so 2 + 2 = 4. Got it. Thanks.

2 + 2 = 3.999999999999999999999....

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

He is free to demonstrate what he means, but until he does it's just empty words.

and means



It's an undeniable facet of the universe. Hell, not even this universe, any universe, the omniverse. It's a facet of existence. For it not to be true, nothing must exist. So if he can refute that, he better have a hell of an argument.

I posit to you the idea that in another universe, gathering 2 objects with another 2 objects spontaneously creates a fifth object.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Akagi

2 + 2 = 3.999999999999999999999....

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I posit to you the idea that in another universe, gathering 2 objects with another 2 objects spontaneously creates a fifth object.

Even under the multiverse theory with 10 dimensions, as I understand it, that's not a possibility. Though physics, chemistry and biology may all be different, or maybe not even possible in those universes, math is constant.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Even under the multiverse theory with 10 dimensions, as I understand it, that's not a possibility. Though physics, chemistry and biology may all be different, or maybe not even possible in those universes, math is constant.

Math has nothing to do with the spontaneous generation of a fifth object in a parallel universe.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Math has nothing to do with the spontaneous generation of a fifth object in a parallel universe.

Except it does. You're saying that the inherent property of two and two being placed together in proximity would make it five.

If another object appeared for whatever reason, it wouldn't be 2 + 2 anymore, it'd be 2 + 2 + 1. And that equals 5.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Except it does. You're saying that the inherent property of two and two being placed together in proximity would make it five.

If another object appeared for whatever reason, it wouldn't be 2 + 2 anymore, it'd be 2 + 2 + 1. And that equals 5.

I guess you're right, but in that universe 2+2 would no longer exist, and in its place would be 2+2+1.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I guess you're right, but in that universe 2+2 would no longer exist, and in its place would be 2+2+1.

2+2 would simply be a theoretical concept in their math that has "no application".

Like complex (imaginary) numbers in our system, or any number of theoretical constructs we use in our math which could very well be represented by some physical thing in another universe. Which is one reason why I lean towards m-theory, despite the lack of experimental data.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Even under the multiverse theory with 10 dimensions, as I understand it, that's not a possibility.

11.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by nshanin

11.

The 11th is considered unnecessary under some interpretations of the first 10, with its properties included in the bottom ones.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

The 11th is considered unnecessary under some interpretations of the first 10, with its properties included in the bottom ones.

Interesting... String theory is okay, Kaluza-Klein is better:

Q: What about K-K dimensions beyond the first seven? If there are more than seven K-K dimensions, there are two reasons why we may not have noticed them: (a) the force associated with the dimension is so strong (small K-K loop) that all particles in our universe are constrained by available energy to be neutral and "at rest" within its loop, or (b) the force is so weak (big K-K loop) that up to now experiments have not been sensitive enough to show its effects. In fact the time-reversal asymmetry observed in the decay of the K2o. meson has been attributed to a hypothetical "super-weak" force, possible evidence for a new K-K dimension.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw06.html

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Interesting... String theory is okay, Kaluza-Klein is better:


http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw06.html

I'm not familiar with this...I will do more research.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

2+2 would simply be a theoretical concept in their math that has "no application".

Like complex (imaginary) numbers in our system, or any number of theoretical constructs we use in our math which could very well be represented by some physical thing in another universe. Which is one reason why I lean towards m-theory, despite the lack of experimental data.

You do know that any dimensions beyond the 4 we exist in correspond to metaphysics directly, right?

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

You do know that any dimensions beyond the 4 we exist in correspond to metaphysics directly, right?

Yes and know. As the study of the fundamental nature of reality, it does apply. However, the way many interpret it, I don't think it does.