Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Since you are too stupid to see a tesseract, you might as well believe it!

    One ridiculous argument has it that 3-D mortals are limited in their ability to see a 4-D object.

    “ I cannot show you a tesseract, because we are trapped in three dimensions.”  [1]

    “ We cannot see a 4D object in its entirety in a 3D space for the simple reason that our
       3D space is a sub-space of the 4D space. Hence, all we can see will be a partial view
       of the 4D object through our 3D plane!”  [2]

    “ Being three dimensional we are only able to see the world with our eyes in two
       dimensions; a fourth dimensional being would see the world in three. Thus it would
       be able, for example, to see all six sides of a box simultaneously. He would not only
       see all six sides, but he would also be able to see what was inside the box at the same
       time. Just like in Flatland, the sphere sees the two dimensional world objects and
       everything inside them all at the same time. Analogously, a fourth dimensional viewer
       would see all points in our 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner
       structure of solid objects and things obscured from our 3-dimensional viewpoint.”  [3]

    “ try moving in a direction that allows you to move away from all points on the sphere's
       surface while maintaining that equidistance. You can't do it. There's nowhere to go—
       nowhere that we know anyway.”  [4]

    “ A classic example of the limitations of our neural wiring is the inability to picture more
       than three dimensions. Why, after all, would nature provide us with the capacity to
       visualize things that no living creature had ever experienced?” [5]

    “ String theorists are betting that extra dimensions do indeed exist; in fact, the equations
       that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions.
       But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a
       hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded
       humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and
       perhaps always will be.” [6]

    [Perhaps these authors should complain to their mothers for giving them limitations to
     see geometric figures!]

    The arguments are ridiculous not because we can in fact see a tesseract, but because the mathematical moron is attempting
    to sell you a whopper.  He is telling you that the emperor's robe is there, but you can't see it because you are too stupid or
    because you don't have enough imagination.

    These excuses are not new. They come to us from traditional religion. In the old days, when a priest was pushed against a
    wall, he was trained to draw a joker from his sleeve: "God works in mysterious ways" or " We cannot hope to understand
    God's ways." or something along these lines. The idiots of Mathematics found that these types of arguments work wonders
    on the majority of jurors. Everybody nods because everyone has been conditioned since childhood to believe that it is
    unreasonable to understand everything. And that would end the conversation. The priest always ended up looking like a
    million dollars.

    However, a geometric figure is not something you are supposed to understand. A geometric figure is something you
    visualize with your eyes, at least before the prosecutor describes it and uses it to explain something else. Otherwise, it is
    not a geometric figure. Or a physical object. Relativists have to find another word to classify it. The mathematicians should
    have realized long ago that there is no way to infer a geometric figure through extrapolation anyways, which is what they
    are trying to do here. Since they cannot show you a genuine tesseract, they purport to do the next best thing: convince
    you through dimensional analysis that the tesseract exists somewhere in heaven and that you are simply too insignificant
    to understand God's ways.

    Fortunately, in Science, we don’t prove the existence of objects. In Science, it works in reverse. The prosecutors first exhibit
    and then describe a geometric figure. Afterwards, they can do anything they want with it.

    Nevertheless, relativists fail to offer a justification for their claim. Does space surround this 4-D object? If so, there should be
    no reason for you not to see it. The alternative implies that the tesseract contains space. So? how does it do it? How does
    the tesseract, the hypercube, or whatever relativists want to call their contraption enclose that which has no shape?

    And then you have those relativists who attempt to convince you that it is in fact possible to 'see' a 4-spatial-D object:

    “ Given that humans only visualize three dimensions, how is it possible to visualize
       four dimensional, or higher, objects?... the form of four-dimensional objects can be
       seen in three dimensions. This method of viewing higher dimensional objects as
       well as others is one way people can understand the shape of higher dimensional
       space.” [7]

    [See? Understand? Visualize? To relativists it's all the same because they don't define
     the crucial words that make or break their theories.]

    “ Here's a fun way to start visualizing the 4-dimensional regular polytopes” [8]

    “ we shall see how a 4D cube would look like in our 3D space...So, the next time you
       see a 3D cube appear in front of you, believe me it's a 4D cube.” [9]

    [Oh brother! Did these guys learn this at Cambridge or at Harvard? The authors 'explain'
     the 4-D. He urges you to watch a movie of how they construct a tesseract step by step.
     They call what they do 'science.']

    So? What did you learn at the relativity school today, my son? Are you able to see a 4-D object or not?

    I don't know, dad. I still don't know.


    2.0   I believe in the tesseract

    The mathematicians have also yet to learn that there is no provision for belief or knowledge in the definition of the word
    object. A cube is not a cube because you can prove it with some sort of experiment or because you believe in it. A cube is
    an object because you can point to and name it. The ET visualizes the object you are pointing to and now understands the
    word ‘cube.’ Relativists should follow this procedure with their infamous tesseract. If people have to strain the imagination
    to ‘understand’ a tesseract, a better conclusion is that they are not contemplating a physical object or a geometric figure.
    If relativists insist that everything must be subject to experiment, here they have a chance to follow their own irrational
    doctrine to its logical conclusion: The only ‘test’ for a physical object is to produce it! The ball is in their court.

    Having said all this, the ‘we’re limited 3-D beings’ excuse ultimately fails because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We
    realize this when we discover the true nature of the tesseract…
Relativists say that
you are too stupid to
see a tesseract with
your eyes
We are so insignificant,
Bill, and the God of
Space-time so great,
that we have no hope of
ever understanding Him.


    Pages in this module:

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008