Scientific proof that God exists?

[Zane]

This thread makes me want to become Buddhist.

[Slark]

This thread makes me want to become Buddhist.

Bro, you do not have to become Buddhist or anything. Just be yourself and be good honest man, you do not need any religion to do that.

[Cortex7]

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

[bl4kjaguar]

A domesticated animal is still operating within evolution, be it a domesticated cat or ape (human).

That does not help to explain the gaps. Such an explanation ("evolution did it") fails to address the anomalies with a plausible explanation. Pye's article has some anomalies, and here are some more; a challenge for you:

http://www.us.net/life/

Almost all arguments against evolution are "but the gaps".

There needn't be gaps.

Well, if there need not be gaps then you can easily claim this prize and earn yourself $1M in funds.

I expect you to prove scientifically that there need not be gaps.

[bl4kjaguar]

That is exactly why I have problem with hardcore believers. They do not have any proof beside: 'I say so' and they tend to be aggressive. Just be civil, please.

BADecker slandered my truth. But that is not as bad as what he did about it next...

He has no proof at all for anything that he says.

When you examine the content from every angle, of both the teachings you prescribe and the teachings of the Bible, you find that Bible teachings outweigh the teachings of everything else. The weight of Bible teaching is in the direction of salvation of souls, not the formula for the "bread" called manna.

When I examined the content from every angle you proposed (8 points/directions), I found that God's WORD is superior to your Bible in every case.

There is no proper understanding or explanation of souls and rebirth in the Bible. You allege that the message is salvation of souls, but that message is much more clear and literal in God's WORD if anything!

Even though the Bible is filled with references to reincarnation.

[BADecker]

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible approximately 3,500 years ago. How do we know? We know it from the traditional writings that have been handed down, and the present-day traditions, of the Hebrew nation.

How do we know that the Hebrew traditions are correct and true? We know it from ancient manuscripts. Some of these are in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These show that the people of Israel, the Hebrews, were extremely accurate and extremely steadfast in the copying and handing down of the Old Testament of the Bible. This steadfastness and accuracy attests to the truthfulness of the Hebrew (Israel) traditions for accuracy regarding the Bible.

Why were the Hebrew people as steadfast and accurate as they were? At least two reasons. One is that there was such power behind the miracles that Moses did, both in Egypt, and in the wilderness for the 40 years, that the impression made upon the people caused them to hand the information down to their children and grandchildren emphatically. The second is that the Spirit of God moved them.

How do we know when Moses wrote? Again, it is Hebrew tradition along with ancient Bible writings, like those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Isaiah in the DSS has been dated to as early as 325 BC (Actually, there are fragments of as many as 20 Isaiah scrolls in the areas where the DSS were found.). This means that ancient copies are only 1,200 to 1,400 years away from Moses, while being over 2,100 years away from us. This point is important and will be mentioned later.

While the Isaiah scrolls in the DSS show differences in letter formation of the Hebrew alphabet, when compared with the next oldest copies of Isaiah that we have that are NOT DSS, the various themes of the copies remain the same, while the style and actual wording at times varies a little.

Compare the numbers of surviving copies of ancient Bible manuscripts with those of any other ancient (or even more modern) religion. There are few ancient copies of any other religion. Why? I would suggest that there was little strength or power in what was written... or in the writer.

The fact that the clear message of Isaiah is present with us today, yet existed originally much closer to the time of Moses, indicates that Moses was a person of power. Isaiah, himself, testifies to Moses in his Book of Isaiah.

Where is the Book of Isaiah presently? It is the same place as the books of Moses... in the hands of millions or billions of people around the world. Where are the writings of any other religion from as far back as 3,500 years? Approximately nowhere. Any religious writings from any B.C. religion other than the Bible are virtually not in use. Any religious writings from any A.D. religion other than the Bible simply do not have the scope and "majesty" of the writings of the Bible. And none of the others can save souls.

There is a unique power in the Bible. It is a power that in not found in any other writings. It is a power that has kept it alive for 3,500 years, and has kept the tradition of the beginning of the world alive, right down to the present.

The choice is yours. Investigate or ignore. Believe what you will, but consider, WHAT you believe will determine your eternal destiny.

[commandrix]

Characteristics of a hardcore Creationist:

• Has no sense of humor
• Cherrypicks which parts of the Bible that he's actually going to use in an argument
• Uses semantics ad nauseum (Example: Ken Ham insisting that species are actually properly called "kinds" like there's a significant difference except maybe level of education)
• Loses his temper and insists that we're all going to Hell whenever confronted with evidence that he might be wrong
• Insists that his way of believing is the only true one, despite evidence to the contrary and totally ignoring the hundreds of religions and thousands of denominations, cults, and everyday differences in religious opinions that have ever existed.

Sound familiar to anyone?

[rickymaroon]

soon technology and science will explain everything, we still need more time.

[the joint]

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable.  Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit:  Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post.  Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

[darkota]

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable.  Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit:  Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post.  Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

[bl4kjaguar]

Agnosticism is not a position at all. It is a means of arriving at a position.

Source

[Lauda]

Agnosticism is not a position at all. It is a means of arriving at a position.

Source

This is such a bad quote in my opinion. Since I'm trying to place myself among agnostics.

[bl4kjaguar]

Agnosticism is not a position at all. It is a means of arriving at a position.

Source

This is such a bad quote in my opinion. Since I'm trying to place myself among agnostics.

"Agnostic" means nothing more than "rational". It cannot be an alternative to theism and atheism.

[BADecker]

Agnosticism is not a position at all. It is a means of arriving at a position.

Source

This is such a bad quote in my opinion. Since I'm trying to place myself among agnostics.

"Agnostic" means nothing more than "rational". It cannot be an alternative to theism and atheism.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Agnostic?s=t :

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]


noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

adjective
4. of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. holding neither of two opposing positions:
If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

[bl4kjaguar]

Your book is not even that great, BADecker...

When I examined the content from every angle you proposed (8 points/directions), I found that God's WORD is superior to your Bible in every case.

There is no proper understanding or explanation of souls and rebirth in the Bible. You allege that the message is salvation of souls, but that message is much more clear and literal in God's WORD if anything!

Even though the Bible is filled with references to reincarnation.

[the joint]

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable.  Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit:  Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post.  Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know."  It's a *huge* difference.  Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature.

It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known."

It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.).

[bl4kjaguar]

1. If [God's WORD] were sufficiently large to cover all the bases, there would be no way for understanding it.

2. The Bible offers enough to be saved, and to live a right life as much as possible at the same time.

3. [God's WORD, the recorded] explanation of things would simply drag people down with lots of words,

4. rather than building them up to life everlasting the only way it can be done, through the Word of God as expressed in the Bible.

1. That argument is based on what MAN SAYS that God says. God is unlimited, so we receive as much understanding as we are capable of. There is no way that you can fail to get the message after reading God's WORD.
2. Speak for yourself! How are you living a right life when you have failed to examine your own beliefs and their shortcomings, and you are screaming about the splinter in mine eye and calling my truth "foolishness"?
I am looking for sound and logical reasons to suspect that God's WORD is illegitimate and/or inferior to the Bible, and even any reason to suspect that Christ's authentic teachings are absent in God's WORD but present in the Bible, but you have not provided even a single good reason (I refuted them all). You were wrong for slandering my truth in total ignorance of the facts. A "right life" means that you take responsibility for your actions.
3. How exactly will Christ's teachings limit your spiritual progress? Speak for yourself! You ignore the possibility that by repeating a message, the message is clearer. You prefer less information to more information? You want the lite version of God's WORD? The one filled with tales and allegory? Or do you want the literal truth?
4. If there is going to be any saving going on, then YOU will do it. You will either earn your spiritual unity or not.

[(oYo)]

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable.  Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit:  Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post.  Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know."  It's a *huge* difference.  Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature.

It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known."

It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.).

You make these statements based on logic (and there's little doubt you are very intelligent), but have you considered the possibility that an omnipotent being is beyond logic? In the same way a worm does not have the capacity to understand the stock market, it is impossible for us to truly understand an omnipotent being. It's my understanding that you hold the position that if we follow a scientific method (ie. Metatron's Cube) god will eventually be revealed, because you believe god follows and is bound by this method. I'm suggesting that a truly omnipotent being doesn't and isn't. The mysteries of this entire (observable) universe may or may not be revealed by such a method, but I very much doubt it can ever reveal what is unobservable, whether it be outside of this universe, or what came before and after its existence.

This is why being agnostic makes perfect sense. (Meaning, God is unknowable.) Unless, you are one of the many believers that believe god gave us "His Word" as is written in the Bible, Koran, etc., then you can decide to be for god (ie. Christian) or against (ie. Satanist). Otherwise, you are left with atheism or anti-theism. Of all these positions on god, it's obvious that only the (correct) believers (that are worthy and on god's side) can truly know god, because god said so.

[the joint]

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable.  Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit:  Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post.  Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know."  It's a *huge* difference.  Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature.

It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known."

It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.).

You make these statements based on logic (and there's little doubt you are very intelligent), but have you considered the possibility that an omnipotent being is beyond logic? In the same way a worm does not have the capacity to understand the stock market, it is impossible for us to truly understand an omnipotent being. It's my understanding that you hold the position that if we follow a scientific method (ie. Metatron's Cube) god will eventually be revealed, because you believe god follows and is bound by this method. I'm suggesting that a truly omnipotent being doesn't and isn't. The mysteries of this entire (observable) universe may or may not be revealed by such a method, but I very much doubt it can ever reveal what is unobservable, whether it be outside of this universe, or what came before and after its existence.

This is why being agnostic makes perfect sense. (Meaning, God is unknowable.) Unless, you are one of the many believers that believe god gave us "His Word" as is written in the Bible, Koran, etc., then you can decide to be for god (ie. Christian) or against (ie. Satanist). Otherwise, you are left with atheism or anti-theism. Of all these positions on god, it's obvious that only the (correct) believers (that are worthy and on god's side) can truly know god, because god said so.

 

Great post.  First, let me briefly reference the emboldened passages:

1)  Not only have I considered the possibility of an omnipotent entity that is "beyond logic," but I'm knowingly asserting my position in direct contrast to this possibility.  Furthermore, I held onto an agnostic position for a long time until further exploration suggested to me that the position is untenable.  I went from playing along with Roman Catholicism as a child, to atheism, to agnosticism, to a blend of agnosticism and East Asian religious philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, etc.), to complete open-mindedness, and now I've settled as a monistic theist.

2)  I appreciate that you tried to clarify and understand my position, because it's inaccurate.  I do not believe God can ever be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning.  Even if we do not start with any presuppositions about God (because we shouldn't, else we put the cart before the horse), we already know right off the bat that inductive reasoning lacks the scope necessary to formulate absolute statements about reality at the highest possible level of generality.  Inductive reasoning fails because a presupposition about God would need to preclude any absolute statements made about such an entity.  In other words, we would need to somehow know absolutely what God is before finding any evidence to support that presupposition.  Obviously, this creates a huge problem, so we need a way to avoid the problem altogether.

Stemming from these two points, first we need to consider what is relevant to us, and perhaps the best way to identify what is relevant is to first identify which is irrelevant.  Specifically, things that are unreal or illogical are of no relevance to us because there is absolutely no possible way to make sense out of them.  If something were 'real' enough outside of reality so as to have an impact on it, then it would need to be inside reality.  Similarly, reality would be completely unintelligible if it weren't logical, and the fact that we all observe and interact with a stable Universe demonstrates that reality is inherently logical.

Now, let's focus on your phrasing when you talk about the possibility of an entity that is "beyond logic."  This is where things get fun. Really fun.  And really, really cool.

You could say that, in a sense, logic itself is beyond logic.  What I mean by this is that logic is holographic in structure.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with holograms, but if you take a piece of holographic film and you cut a corner from it, e.g. 25%, the result is not a corner that reveals 25% of the original image, but rather you have 100% of the image at 1/4 size.  Logic is similar. There are all kinds logical systems that vary according to scale, and although the sizes of these different systems vary, the logical properties governing all of them are the same.  

When we observe something, the logic and rules of observation (i.e. at a higher level) relate to the observed conditions (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational (remember, root word = ratio), statements about that relation.  Similarly, when we engage in metacognition, the logic and rules of metacognition (i.e. at a higher level) relate to various abstract objects of cognition (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational statements about that relation, too.  

The point I'm making is that we already have insight into how something 'beyond logic' works.  However, I would just clarify that it's not quite accurate to say 'beyond logic,' but rather it might be more accurate to say something like, "There exist logical systems of lower order that are necessitated by logical systems of higher order."  

If you're having trouble understanding what I mean by all of this, I'll refer you to an illustrative analogy I've used several times on this forum to demonstrate the point:  Imagine that we, as 3rd-dimensional beings, want to know what the 4th dimension is like. As 3D beings, we are limited by certain logical boundaries that define the 3rd dimension, so how can we know what the 4th dimension is like?   Well, what we can do is we can draw something like a tesseract, a 4th-dimensional object, on a 2nd-dimensional plane of paper.   But, similar to the problem of induction I spoke of earlier, how can we know that a tesseract is a sound model of a 4th-dimensional object?  Wouldn't that require that we invoke a presupposition of what a 4th-dimensional object is like before we've evidenced it?

As it turns out, when we draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, we are actually removing ourselves from the constraints of our 3rd-dimensional perspective, and instead we assume the perspective of a 5th-dimensional entity.  That is, we assume a 5d perspective and talk about the 4th dimension in the same way that we, as 3d beings, can fully explore and understand the logic of the 2nd-dimension.  All spatial dimensions are the same in their logical constructs (e.g. the 3rd-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 2d phenomena, the 4th-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 3d phenomena, etc.), but they vary according to scope.

To wrap up this post, notice how spatial dimensions are all logical constructs, but each successive dimension is *infinitely* greater than the previous one.  This should provide you with some insight into how we can gain insight into something (God?) that is infinitely greater than we or the logical system(s) we inhabit.

Edit:  Oh, I guess I should clarify what my actual position is.  My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions.  I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods.   I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization.

[shenron276]

If I saw and spoked to God, I'm normal, but if I saw and spoked to a digimon, I'm crazy. Do you see the pattern here?