It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God, dimensions and the displacement of our souls?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I Just thought of something.
What if the Creator of the universe is from another Dimension?
ok My Theory on Dimensions has been that it is like a ladder crossbar time is the downword line that stabilizes it when a universe in a dimension grows big enough it displaces it's energy to birth another dimension parallel to itself.
now what if someone in a parallel Dimension was smart enough to know this, all they would have to do is make a voice amp good enough to jump a dimension to communicate with us.
Could it be possable for them to make things happen in this dimension from theirs?
I have alot more to my theory of How Dimensions work as far as theorys go I wrote a ton of pages and still have them around somewhere in my room, I had it alot clearer but thought maybe it possible that maybe God could be a guy from another Dimension.

Also maybe when we die our souls Displace to [heaven/another Dimension]?
I would like some feedback please.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by attackofthehatta]




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
When you get enough points to get a RATS subscription, check this thread out...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's what I think anyways...



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by attackofthehatta
ok My Theory on Dimensions has been that it is like a ladder crossbar time is the downword line that stabilizes it when a universe in a dimension grows big enough it displaces it's energy to birth another dimension parallel to itself.
.
Could it be possable for them to make things happen in this dimension from theirs?
.
I have alot more to my theory of How Dimensions work


First, please answer this question:
What do you think the word dimension means?

You said "a universe in a dimension"...

The universe doesn't exist in A dimension.
Universe "has" dimensions.

Dimensions are just words to describe the properties of something.

For example, a cube has three dimensions - length, width and height. In a 1m cube all three of it's dimensions are 1m.

This is what dimension or dimensions mean.

Space has three dimensions, since you can move up/down, left/right and forwards/backwards in it.

Time is sometimes called the fourth dimension, but i won't go into this.


My point is something else.

Our (mis)understanding of the word "dimension" comes mostly from science fiction and also from many new-age authors.

The latter often say "We live in the third dimension." and this is often repeated here on ATS, but it is beyond stupid.

The only thing, that is one dimensional is a line. It only has one dimension - length.
In two dimensions, you can have various shapes. They have length and width and a surface.
In three dimensions you can have objects. Just add height, and you get volume.

It is impossible for something to exist in A dimension. It is impossible for us to live in one dimension, be it the first, second or the third.


If you are talking about the multiverse theory, that is something else entirely, and has nothing to do with dimensions.

Each universe in the multiverse would have it's own dimensions, but these dimensions are not something. Just words to describe the properties of something.


Many such terms are often abused to give a bizzare theory an appearance of scientific validity. Of course it only works when people don't understand those terms.

Don't let yourself get sucked into pseudo science.


P.S. Oh, and i have nothing against you, and this post is not an attack on you or anything.. I just think, that if we want to understand something, we have to describe it correctly. Using the wrong (and misunderstood) words doesn't really help in this.

[edit on 30/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
See, It's not that I don't know about that aspect of "Dimensions" But I see Dimensions as more of a 3d puzzle piece where it works along with coexsisting with eachother in a same space.
Imagine 4 pieces of a jigsaw but they interlock to make a 3 Dimensional Square, all locking and fitting together being separate things but joining as one box.
Now Imagine that that box fits a whole universe inside & around it. [even though the universe has no edges just think of it that way]
now even though each has it's own Dimensional quality I think of the aspects coming together as a whole to form our whole exsistence in this dimensional universe.
[Like I said it was only a threory in the first place and I don't care what others think because they are in fact only theories in all aspects]
Did that make sense to you because when you think of it in my aspect then you can start to understand what I'm talking about in a better light.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by attackofthehatta
See, It's not that I don't know about that aspect of "Dimensions"

That is the only aspect of dimensions, all others come from a misunderstanding and abuse of the word.

The only other "aspect" of the word is a misunderstanding, coming from science fiction.


Science fiction texts often mention the concept of dimension, when really referring to parallel universes, alternate universes, or other planes of existence. This usage is derived from the idea that in order to travel to parallel/alternate universes/planes of existence one must travel in a spatial direction/dimension besides the standard ones. In effect, the other universes/planes are just a small distance away from our own, but the distance is in a fourth (or higher) spatial dimension, not the standard ones.


From Wikipedia - Dimension



Originally posted by attackofthehatta
But I see Dimensions as more of a 3d puzzle piece where it works along with coexsisting with eachother in a same space.

That's not a dimension, that's a universe in a multiverse.

Calling universes "dimensions" is one of the most common misconceptions.
Using words, that already have a meaning, for something else, only creates confusion, or at least makes it deeper.
Dimensions are properties of the universe(s), nothing more.

If you are creating a new theory, you sometimes have to make up new words, to describe something, but you have to explain it.
Since you are obviously talking about the multiverse theory, how about you look into it before building on it?


Right now you are using a word in a way, that makes it completelly meaningless, and doesn't explain anything. And i think you could do a lot better.



Originally posted by attackofthehatta
[Like I said it was only a threory in the first place and I don't care what others think because they are in fact only theories in all aspects]

I wasn't commenting on your theory. I just think, you could make it better, if you used the correct words.
Otherwise, you can confuse others, or even yourself, when you go into it deeper, and the same word starts conflicting with itself.



Originally posted by attackofthehatta
Did that make sense to you because when you think of it in my aspect then you can start to understand what I'm talking about in a better light.

I knew from the start, that you are talking about the multiverse theory.

Again, i just think, it would be better, if you would describe it with words in their original meanings, as opposed to their sci-fi (or new-age) meanings.


All words have a specific meaning, that is agreed upon. This is important, because only that way, can they convey a message. If you start giving words double meanings, people can get confused, and in a theory, you will eventually get stuck.

As it is, many people already don't know what "dimension" means. They just know the sci-fi meaning of the word.

Science fiction often uses such words to make something interesting and give it an appearance of scientific validity (just like new-agers), but your theory is supposed to describe something real, not just make an interesting story, right?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
One can go on & on about theries, however all of the questions about life can be found in the Holly Bible. God IS, Was & will ALWAYS BE



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I think it is a very interesting topic of discussion...

deezee - thanks for the correction, you got me looking up multiverse in Wikipedia.

I think the original poster is going in this direction: "The different universes within a multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes." I could be wrong...

The Bible tells us "that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

To me, I wouldn't refer to God - Christ - Angels as some guy(s), that would be a underestiamted statement. I also don't think he would have to "jack" into ours, the difference is that He has access to all of them at will, He is God afterall, where we are confined in our physical aspect for the time being...

I know where your going with it and it is complex, but very cool to ponder



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon365
I think the original poster is going in this direction: "The different universes within a multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes." I could be wrong...

Yes, he is talking about the multiverse theory.

Unfortunatelly, people often call universes "dimension" or say that we live in A dimension, which is incorrect.

The only reason i corrected him is, because i believe, that if you want to convey a message, you have to use the words in their correct meaning, or you create confusion in those, who do not understand both the real meaning and the wrong one.



EDIT: And yes, if God were to exist, he would have to be "above" all the universes and even "above" multiverse, since he is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent...

But i don't believe in the Bible, and i don't believe in an Anthropomorphic God.

I do have a theory on the origin of the multiverse tho, and in it all the universes have the same "source", but i wouldn't call it god, even tho it is "omnipotent", "omnipresent" and "omniscient".
But it's not anthropomorphic.

[edit on 7/2/08 by deezee]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
deezee, I would like to hear about your theory on the origin of the multiverse...

I know you mentioned that you do not believe in the Bible or an Anthropomorphic God, but if possible, I would also like to hear about your theory, if you were to "hypothetically" believe there was an Anthropomorphic God. That would very cool!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon365
deezee, I would like to hear about your theory on the origin of the multiverse...

It is a very complex theory, but it is not published. I don't know if it would mean anything to you.

But if you want, you can U2U me, and i'll try to explain it.

After reading many ancient texts, i got the feeling, that certain people in the past came up with the very same "theory".

But as they were trying to explain it to others, it became misunderstood, and of course anthropomorphicised and turned into "God".



Originally posted by defcon365
I know you mentioned that you do not believe in the Bible or an Anthropomorphic God, but if possible, I would also like to hear about your theory, if you were to "hypothetically" believe there was an Anthropomorphic God. That would very cool!!!

I don't understand. What would be very cool? My "theory" doesn't contain an anthropomorphic god. But it does contain something, that could have been turned into one, by human misunderstanding, as i mentioned above.


Do you know what anthropomorphism is?

It is the tendency of us humans, to give inanimate objects or animals, or natural phenomenon..., properties of ourselves.


Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, games, and unseen or unknown sources of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphism. The term is derived from two Greek words, (anthropos), meaning human, and (morphe), meaning shape or form.

It is a common and seemingly natural tendency for humans to perceive nonhuman animals or inanimate objects as having human characteristics, one which some suggest provides a window into the way in which humans perceive themselves. An example of this tendency might inlcude naming cars or begging machines to work.


Wiki - Anthropomorphism (lately wiki always shows up first in the searches)


This, by itself, shows to me, that such an anthropomorphic God doesn't exist.

The Bible says "So God created man in his own image.."

This sentence is very telling, and if you understand anthropomorphism, it becomes very clear, that it was in fact - man, who "created" God in his own image.


Of course the sentence the way it's in the bible does many other things as well, such as give people a feeling of being special. Which is what they always thought anyway. And beliefs are more convincing, if they confirm something we already feel.


BTW: I am in no way trying to convince you of anything here. I'm just explaining my position.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by attackofthehatta
I Just thought of something.
What if the Creator of the universe is from another Dimension?

In one way, It is. In another, and much more real way, It is not.

Dimensions are an observational concept. You could say that the creator is from another dimension because, perceptually, It is outside of the universe. But since it is the creator, it is also inside of the universe and the whole of the universe and all phenomena within the universe. It is no greater, no lesser and no different from any of these phenomena despite the fact that It may be incorrectly perceived as such.

But to say that a creator is separate somehow, well, separates it from everything else. That would require that this creator was, at some point, also created. So this extra-dimensional creator is not really the ultimate creator; I made a tomato sandwich this afternoon, I am the creator!

Dimensions are purely observational phenomena. Created and reified because of our observation of Dimension. Of this and that. Any true, or Ultimate Creator would inherently be both of and beyond concepts of Dimensions or, indeed, conceptualisation of any kind.


Originally posted by attackofthehatta
Also maybe when we die our souls Displace to [heaven/another Dimension]?
I would like some feedback please.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by attackofthehatta]


'Soul' is somewhat of a trick concept because of the whole Ego thing.

Ego is tied to observation, the concept of 'self' as separate from everything else. 'Soul' would require that what you percieve as you, the 'you' reading this post right now, began with your perception of self, arising through the interpretation of a sensory body (brain with eyes, ears, skin, nose and tongue) but will not necessarily end with it because of 'soul'.

This can go two main ways.

1: The Christian (as an umbrella term) way. 'You' live on as Soul, but still as you, that is You without body, in some other place that, for all intensive purposes, may as well be you with body. Either experiencing great pleasure (heaven), great indifference or boredom (limbo/purgatory) or great suffering (hell).

2: The Buddhist (as another umbrella term) way. You reincarnate/rebirth as a perpetuating thread of 'You'.

Now, for concept 1, this should lead to the question of 'Where does Soul arise from if it has a definite beginning but no actual ending'. This makes a bit of a mockery of the whole Infinity/Eternity concept. Something that has no ending cannot, logically, have a beginning either, without condensing the non-conceptual Infinity/Eternity into either A Very Big Place or A Very Long Time.

Concept 2 gets around this a little bit, if we are reincarnated or reborn then we don't really have any definite beginning or ending. But then we totally destroy the concept of any one incarnation or aspect of 'Soul' actually being 'You' at all. I am the reincarnation of 'Y' whp was the reincarnation of 'X', et cetera. The whole thing becomes a little cyclic, hindered by the issue of 'well who was I when there was no-one'

Which brings us to the third possible way.

That none of this has ever happened at all, that it is all illusory, that You are the Only Thing that is, that ever was and that ever will be, and that all phenomena are just Your idle daydreams to pass the time, and to make the time to pass, the concepts of 'was' and 'will be'.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
It is a very complex theory, but it is not published. I don't know if it would mean anything to you.

But if you want, you can U2U me, and i'll try to explain it.


I am layman when it comes to science/physics however, it would nice to hear your theory in it's simplest form. If you do not wish to share it on the board, I will send you a USU


I don't understand. What would be very cool? My "theory" doesn't contain an god. But it does contain something, that could have been turned into one, by human misunderstanding, as i mentioned above.

Do you know what anthropomorphism is?

It is the tendency of us humans, to give inanimate objects or animals, or natural phenomenon..., properties of ourselves.


Perhaps I misunderstood what it was and I apologize if there was misunderstanding. I looked up the word on Miriam Websters website and it states:


1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes



2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things


Which fits to what I believe in Genesis. God created man is His image. I realize that you do not believe in the Bible, and I am not asking you to. I just wanted to see if you could explain your theory from a "believers perspective".

If you don't want to do so, that's ok, I was just interested in hearing it.


The Bible says "So God created man in his own image.."

This sentence is very telling, and if you understand anthropomorphism, it becomes very clear, that it was in fact - man, who "created" God in his own image.


This is where I disagree with you, I beleive God came first (has always been) and created man in His image or likeness. I don't see how a creation of God could make Him in our image, when He is the Creator...


BTW: I am in no way trying to convince you of anything here. I'm just explaining my position.


I appreciate that, and please, once again, I am not trying to convince you of anything either, just would like to hear your theory and I am sure the OP would as well. It could be quite similar...


[edit on 8-2-2008 by defcon365]



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon365
If you do not wish to share it on the board, I will send you a USU

Send me a U2U.



Originally posted by defcon365
This is where I disagree with you, I beleive God came first (has always been)

I know you disagree on this with me, because you believe in the bible.
But maybe i didn't explain it well enough.

Anyway, "God came first (has always been)" doesn't really cut it for me.
Even as a kid, i was asking myself "where" he is, but more importantly, where "he" came from.

If he somehow existed before any of the universes and doesn't have a source himself, he must be outside of any of the universes.
So where is this "outside"? What is this "outside"? Oh, and how exactly can he have a human form outside of a universe?

If he does have a source, then what is this source? And then you have the problem with the origin of this source.

It's a never ending line of questions.

So when ancient humans were asking themselves these questions, and couldn't figure it out, they thought it's unexplainable, called it God, and simply believed. Once you believe, you don't have to try to understand anything anymore.



Originally posted by defcon365
I don't see how a creation of God could make Him in our image, when He is the Creator...

This is what i should have explained better. When i wrote man created god in his own image, i put the word create between "..."

What i meant was, when ancient humans were trying to figure these things out and couldn't, they "created" God as an explanation for what they couldn't understand.

This is what i meant when i said "man created God in his own image".

We are still asking ourselves these same questions, and even now, that we understand MUCH more about the universe.

Often, if understanding is too complicated, we instead choose believing. It's much easier..

Other times, people feel reality is too mundane, and choose some belief system instead, because it's more mysterious and can also offer some sort of comfort.


The reason i even dare say this, is because i used to be a "believer" myself. Now i understand why i believed what i did.

But by now i figured out, that reality is not boring. If you really try to understand the universe, it can be incredibly fascinating. Which is yet another reason, why some people believe it was created by god.


On the other hand, i'm also considering the possibility, that other people in the past, came up with the very same theory as my own. The reason i'm saying this, is because i can see bits and pieces of it in many ancient texts.

It is also possible, that this theory was misunderstood and turned into God, because the source in it actually has some of the properties attributed to God. Not the human shape tho...

As i said, it's a complex theory, but it's not finished and completelly verified scientifically yet, so i would only share it over U2U for now.



Originally posted by defcon365
I appreciate that, and please, once again, I am not trying to convince you of anything either,

That's very cool actually, and i respect you for at least being willing to listen to different explanations, and not trying to force your beliefs on others.

Tell me one thing tho.. Are you a creationist (which would mean, that you believe most science is wrong), or do you believe, that the universe was created by god, but billions of years ago (which would mean, that you believe science is right in it's explanations of the universe, but also in a God, who created it all)?



Originally posted by defcon365
and I am sure the OP would as well. It could be quite similar...

The OP has yet to present his theory in a meaningfull way. That's why i suggested using words, that actually mean, what he want's to say.

I would gladly hear it too, but it has to make sense first. Otherwise it's just pseudo science - big words that confuse and give an appearance of scientific validity to those, who don't understand these words..


The best i could figure out so far, is that he means "universe" (one of them), when he says "dimension", and that he is saying these universes are connected by time. This last bit, i'm not so sure about. In some theories, time doesn't even exist.

His ideas might be similiar to the multiverse theory, but i think he should study it first. It's very interesting, so i think it would be worth it.
It could also help him explain his own thoughts on it better.

[edit on 9/2/08 by deezee]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join