Darwinbots Forum
General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Numsgil on March 02, 2005, 08:13:34 AM
-
I will outline one of my personal beliefs on what Genesis tells, giving sources where I may. Agree, disagree, whatever you want, just don't flame. If you disagree or add a point, try to find a source (religous, scientific, philosophical) so we aren't just poorly parroting the arguments of others that we only half remember at each other.
Post your own personal belief system you have developed.
I'll occassionaly add sources as I find them. Gathering sources is a long job though, so I'll post what I have so far.
Note that I cannot prove that there is a God, or that my personal religous beliefs are true, or other such basic points. Therefore, I assume them as axioms, the same way mathematical proofs are based on unprovable axioms. Disregard what you will.
Feel free to find logic flaws in my postulates or workings. For bonus points find the name of the logical fallacy. (Ad Hominid, etc.)
Overall Hypothesis: God, an immortal ET of great spiritual power, honed the evolution of the Earth through a similar process that we evolve bots in DB, or control the planet in SimEarth. That is, a largely macromanagemental level. When the physical form of man had evolved to the desired form He granted them sentience (the gift of a reasoning soul) through the fruit of the tree of good and evil, similar to how the monolith affected the homonids at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Limitations: Does not address the reported 'immortal' nature of Adam prior to 'the fall'.
Postulate: God is an ET.
Source(s): Dictionary.com says an ET is something "Originating, located, or occurring outside Earth".
Reasoning: Genesis states that God created the Earth. What 'created' means is open to interpretation, but a being cannot 'create' a place it itself was created on. Therefore, if we assume that there is indeed a Creator, He could not have been created on Earth. If he always was as he is now, then he never was created anyway, so there is no place of His creation, therefore God could not have come to exist on Earth. Therefore, by definition, if God exists He must be an ET.
This seems a rather obvious point to make. By making it, I am attempting to shift the rather egocentric view that the Earth is somehow the center of the universe (if not literally than figuratively).
That is, it is extremely arrogant of us to think that God has the time or desire to individually design every organism. See the last postulate below.
Postulate: Man's physical form existed prior to Adam.
Source(s): Any basic biological textbook.
The widely held belief that Adam was roughly 6000 B.C.
Fossil Record.
Postulate: The state of Adam before the fall represented a state of non-sentience, similar to what modern Chimpanzee's possess.
Sources:
Reasoning: This is harder to prove outright. One must read between the lines.
First off, higher apes can be taught basic language skills. These language skills present a state of mind likely no more advanced than a Down syndrome person or a young child.
Neither young children nor retarded people are generally considered accountable for their actions (religously anyway). Why is this? We may say it is because they lack what we define ourselves as possessing. A reasoning soul, sentience, agency, whatever you want to call it.
Thus you see I group apes, young children, and the retarded in that category I call 'non-sentient'. Note that I am not insulting the intelligence of young children or retarded people, but praising the intelligence of the great apes, which has unfortunately been underestimated over the years.
Now, the truly telling sign of the non-sentience of man prior to the fall can be seen in God's reaction to Adam deciding he was naked. Most ape researchers have noticed deceptive behavior in their subjects (ie: lying). Children also often lie. Both do so transparently. Researchers and parents alike aren't fooled by their charges' deceptions, but often play along to teach a lesson or show a point.
When God discovers that Adam has hidden himself, He does not seem angry. He asks "have you eaten from the tree I told you not to?" He obviously knows the answer (he's God afterall, and Adam probably wasn't very good at lying), so this is like a mother asking a child with chocolate all over his face "did you eat the candy bars you weren't supposed to?" The mom already knows the answer. She wants the kid to learn to fess up.
God's reaction to Adam seems much more similar to the relationship between researcher and ape, or parent and small child, than to the relationship between capable reasoning beings.
Postulate: Adam's 'fall' was predesigned, not an accident. God used this as the delivery system for sentience to man.
Sources: LDS doctrine:
Plan of Salvation (http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dsscheibe/theplans.htm)
Another link to Plan of Salvation that tells the importance of the fall (http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=182)
Reasoning: I am LDS, so I accept the basic idea of the plan of salvation. Therefore, I accept the idea of the fall as a predesigned step in the progression of children that God crafted in spirit first.
In the same way that it is now hypothesized that AI comparable to our own cannot be developed by a program that has not lived in the world, so did our growth into sentient life demand a physical body like what God has.
The fruit of the tree of good and evil, wether actual fruit or in some way figurative, was like the monolith from 2001. Except, in 2001 the advent of sentience resulted in weapons of war. In the bible, the advent of sentience resulted in the idea of morality, of agency.
Postulate: God was a mutater (like what schvarz likes to do) who groomed life on earth over a long period of time (at least several million years. Probably more).
Reasoning: There once existed many subspecies of homonids, many existing contemporaneously. There now is only one.
It may be argued that God 'weeded' out the undesirable strains as he attempted to groom a physical being he found aesthetically pleasing and similar in form to his own.
The case against intelligent design is strong. It seems much more probable that God (if you assume there is such a person) simply directed the process of evolution over time. This does not negate the idea that God created us. If one of us mutates a new strain of bot we claim ownership of it. We were responsible for the conditions through which this new bot came to be.
That's it. :bigginangel: :devil:
-
More on this subject later when I have the time to give it a worthy answer. For the moment just take a look at this short story that I wrote in about 1997.
Yes I am a Science fiction writer too. :evil:
:bigginangel: PY :bigginangel:
-
Anybody out there want to post the "literal genesis" point of view.
Any YEC (Young Earth Creationists) on the forum.
Now there is a debate I would love to get into :evil:
:bigginangel: PY :bigginangel:
-
:laugh: I dont know about that, but I do know: a bunch of Jewish computer geeks found a way to tell the past and possibly future using the old testiment.
They do stuff like search for a match of "food" in the letters skip 5 (They line up the rows correctly , probebly remove stuff like spaces and camas) , then they get somthing like:
A B C D E [you]F[/you] B V D E
A B C D E [you]O[/you] W E I N
A B C D E [you]O[/you] N M R T
A B [you]C[/you] D E [you]D[/you] A B C D
A B C [you]H[/you] E D A B C D
A B C H [you]I[/you] D A B C D
A B C C B [you]K[/you] A B C D
A B C C B K [you]A[/you] B C D
A B B H B K B [you]N[/you] C D
wow "chickan" is how bau spells a type of food , we found somthing.... :laugh:
-
Are you talking about the Da-Vinci code?
:D PY :D
-
That kind of study is numerology, plain and simple. It's little better than ouji boards.
It's quite obvious that God was an English major, not a mathematician or biologist. The only proffessional, non spiritual level that the bible works on is as a work of literature. All that symbolism. Isaiah. Yep, God was an English teacher.
-
They managed to get supposedly mystical messages out of "Moby Dick" too
Bunch of crap! :sleep:
<_< PY <_<
-
Hmm, hate to spoil your fun Nums... but if you need some logical derivations to believe in God, then you don't beleive in him anyway (and will not be saved). Because logical arguments can be disputed. Real faith defies logic and arguments. It is just there (or not) :pokey:
-
"God was an English teacher. "
Sorry Num the text was never translated into english, its all done in Hebro(if I spelled it correctly)
"Bunch of crap!"
I was expecting that ans. and I think of it 90% the same way...
Its just people need somthing to beleave in , thats all.
Anyway the other 10% tells me that "The End of Days" has come, So by 2012 we will have a Giant meteor to blow up...
(Thats the stuff from the future they found)
-
Okay, maybe not 'English' teacher. Litarature if you prefer.
Either way, the point is that Jesus told parables full of symoblism, not word problems. Definately a literature teacher.
-
I dont know , but I got this of the History Channel. Kinda solid source there.
(H is no Sifi)
-
I recently followed a thread in another forum where a Young Earth creationist was arguing with a geologist about the existence and provability of the great flood.
Every point that the YEC tried to make was countered by logical factual information about the geological column and various rock formations and stuff.
Eventually the YEC cam right out with it and stated this.
"I know that the flood happened because it says so in the bible. If science can't be made to agrre with Genesis then there must be something fundamentally wrong with science."
I was completely speechless at this. (That is not something that normally happens to me)
How can you argue with logic like this?
Faith absolutely denies anything that doesn't fit in with the person's beleifs.
I am also completely sick of people making the claim that there is absolutely zero evidence for Evolution.
The evidence is everywhere.
:blink: PY :blink:
-
An LDS leader (Talmadge) once said:
Discrepancies that trouble us now will diminish as our knowledge of
pertinent facts is extended. The creator has made record in the rocks for
man to decipher; but He has also spoken directly regarding the main
stages of progress by which the earth has been brought to be what it is.
The accounts can not be fundamentally opposed; one can not contradict
the other; though man’s interpretation of either may be seriously at fault.
That is the best counter I know.
Check out these articles (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai093.html) on what my church's position on evolution and the record of science is. We're probably the only orthodox religion that actually doesn't say science is wrong.
-
Actually Catholics have an official line that it is OK to believe that evolution happened providing that it is accepted that God endowed Mankind with an immortal soul.
I had links to the speeches a while ago. I could probably look them up if need be.
Also your counter can be used both ways here.
Look at this point of view with regards to any religion at odds with science over geology.
"God wrote the rocks.
Man wrote the bible"
The rocks are there. Anybody can look at them, examine them, test them with all of the knowledge of modern science. Millions of hours of painstaking research all come to the same conclusions about the age of the Earth and the absence of any record of a flood.
If God made the Earth then the rocks are the truth, not some man self contradictory made book, written by uneducated goat herders, then handed down through millenia and changed at the whim of every religious leader who got the chance.
I know which I would beleive.
:D PY :D
-
You also have to think 'if I were God, how would I explain this to a pre-tech society?' For instance, Genesis doesn't mention the creation of bacteria. It jumps straight to plants as the first life. That doesn't necessarily mean that God didn't make bacteria. Then again it doesn't mean he did.
So the account we recieve in the bible goes like this:
God->Moses->supersticous, pagan Israelites -> Ancient people's tendancy for exageration and non-linear story telling (both were acceptable and normal)-> thousands of years of transcription, possible mutations over time.
And you wonder why the Bible doesn't seem to agree with science? When in doubt, I'll trust the science record. God only tells us what we are capable of understanding. Can you imagine if the creation account read like a bio textbook? It would've taken thousands of years for anyone to figure out what the heck it's talking about.
That's just bad Godhood.
-
I don't care whether God made the earth in 6 days or 6 billion years. Whats's really important is that His Son died for my sins. That's important in my life.
-
It would've taken thousands of years for anyone to figure out what the heck it's talking about.
As opposed to never figuring out what it is talking about and splitting off into hundreds of factions that each claim to have the one and only ultimate truth.
:lol: PY :lol:
-
I don't care whether God made the earth in 6 days or 6 billion years. Whats's really important is that His Son died for my sins. That's important in my life.
I'm glad that makes you happy.
personally it does nothing at all for me. But then I never take anything on faith. I don't believe something until I can tear it apart, analyze it, develop a hypothesis, make predictions about the outcome of that hypothesis, then test those predictions to the breaking point.
Then I have a THEORY. Not necessarily the truth but the best explanation for the observed facts.
That, in a nut shell, is the scientific method.
I just fail to see any evidence that religion and any kind of belief in God or his son, are any more than primitive superstitions. Just like walking under a ladder only more organized.
People seem have a built in desire to beleive that there is something more to all this than just random events. They like to endow inanimate objects with inteligence.
In the early cave man days they probably thought fire was alive. Later they decided that volcanoes were where the fire god lived. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were his wrath. They made sacrifices to appease him.
Later, science discovered the truth behind volcanoes so the God theory was left behind but instead of deciding there was no God, people just moved him to a new place and kept right on beleiving.
My outlook on th whole subject is that the universe is a harsh, cold, unfeeling mess of random occurences which just happened to produce life on our planet. The rest is just evolution and history.
:D PY :D
-
My oppinion on all this is that it is better to risk belief in God and possibly be able to prove the hypothesis, than to not believe and to find out I was wrong.
It's honestly kind of pointless to argue about it all anyways since we will all see(or not) when we die what the "truth" is.
Endy ;)
-
I am watching this thread closely. Keep it clean, and calm. Or else.
-
:boing: :boing: :boing: :boing: :boing: :boing: :boing: :boing: :boing: :boing:
How's that for calm? :P
-
Like someone pissing on the fuse of a bomb. Nice work.
I'll be blaming you if it goes tits up, though...
-
PY said:
I don't believe something until I can tear it apart, analyze it, develop a hypothesis, make predictions about the outcome of that hypothesis, then test those predictions to the breaking point.
Then I have a THEORY. Not necessarily the truth but the best explanation for the observed facts.
That, in a nut shell, is the scientific method.
Well I agree with you on that. I'm not saying my belief in God is the absolute truth. it is for me, but I wouldn't want to impose it.
As for proving God's existence, there is none (scientific), I agree. However, if you believe God created everything, then of course proof is all around us. ;)
Endy said:
My oppinion on all this is that it is better to risk belief in God and possibly be able to prove the hypothesis, than to not believe and to find out I was wrong.
I believe there was a mathematical calculation by some professor, showing there's a 67% chance God exists :D :lol:
-
I believe there was a mathematical calculation by some professor, showing there's a 67% chance God exists biggrin.gif laugh.gif
That would be a cool bit of math. Wonder what it was based on.
For me it just comes down to a complete lack of any conceivable reason to belaive in any form of creation.
I just don't see any hint of evidence that could point me in that direction.
:lol: PY :lol:
-
I wonder, too. Heard it on the radio somewhere in the past couple of months/years.
-
I know that calculation, its decieded by 6 factors, but when I made that calculation I got 0,03% only
the factors are and whit my numbers(0,1=only 10times less chance this exist whit god, 10=10 times more chance this exist whit god):
goodness exist 2
considered evilness exist 0,1
random evilness exist 0,1
prays have effect 1
miracles happen 1
religous experience happens 2
persinal I think evilness and god cant exist toghater, but I still set it to 0,1 and not 0
btw, im not religus, but wasen jesus gods son and god him self?
and why does the world need a god for you guys?
notice "FOR YOU"
-
Why- did someone start this topic -why
We need to start a "off-off-topic-board"
-
This is off-topic board.
-
thats right
-
HHMMMMMMM???????
:blink:
-
btw, im not religious, but wasn't Jesus god's son and God himself?
and why does the world need a God for you guys?
notice "FOR YOU"
Ok, Here goes. This is basically the christian fate.
Chronologically:
1. God created everything =>Everything is good and nice and perfect and stuff.
2. Eve and Adam (two first humans) eat from the tree 'of good and evil', which God had forbid them to do.
3. Sin comes to world => not so nice and perfect anymore. People die from now on.
4. God promises that a savior will come.
5. Lotsa time passes
6. Year 0: Jesus is born. He is the son of God, and 100% human and 100% God. (Dont' ask me how He did it)
7. about 30 AD: Jesus dies on the cross, and thus pays for all the sins.
8. After that: People who accept Jesus as their savior are saved (goto heaven;good afterlife), as Jesus paid for them. Other people are not saved (goto Hell; bad afterlife), as they have to pay for their sins by themselves, which ordinary humans cannot do.
Ok, This is very very basic but you get the idea. It's all written in the bible, you can read it at www.bible.com (http://www.bible.com)
-
ok, thats how tehy belive, but that doesnt explain why god is needed, and something cant be 200% so that tells against it self. but if you say that he was both son of god and god I can accept it, but not that he is 100% son and 100% god, not accepteble in mathematic
-
In my theology:
God, father and overseer. Has a physical body similar, but not identical (his is obviously immortal) to our own.
Jesus, seperate entity, Creator of Earth under the supervision of the Father, eldest spirit child of the Father (quite literally our oldest brother). When he came to Earth he recieved a body (which is necessary for eternal progression) which was physically fathered by the Father, as opposed ot the rest of us, who are only spiritually fathered. Before that he existed only as a spirit.
Also, a matter of personal taste, I hate it when people say: "Jesus died for your sins" because then that sounds like your accusing the other person of sinning. And "jesus died for my sins" makes it sound like he's your exclusively personal savior, which is rather hubratic (is that a word?)
I much prefer "Jesus died for our sins".
Before the fall, the Earth was in a state of innocence, but also spiritually stagnant. Without knowledge, choice and agency was pointless. That's when Adam tasted the fruit, and gained knowledge. Except with knowledge came responsibility, and we were all held accountable for our acts that we committed when we knew better.
Hence the atonement.
-
Before the fall, the Earth was in a state of innocence, but also spiritually stagnant. Without knowledge, choice and agency was pointless. That's when Adam tasted the fruit, and gained knowledge. Except with knowledge came responsibility, and we were all held accountable for our acts that we committed when we knew better.
How's this work then?
Before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve could have had no concept of right or wrong. That is what the tree gave them right?
How then could they have sinned by eating it since they were not responsible for their actions prior to doing so?
That is messed up dude! It is like me punishing a 2 month old baby for crapping in his diaper after I tell him not to. What kind of father would that make me?
<_< PY <_<
-
How then could they have sinned by eating it since they were not responsible for their actions prior to doing so?
That's where my church tends to diverge from other churches.
We don't believe they did sin. They transgressed, which is different. It means that they had to face the consequences of their choice, but were not damned for doing so (that is, it was automatically covered by the atonement).
-
They still died though :P
:lol: PY :lol:
-
ok, good you have a belief, but I didnt ask WHATS ure belief, I asked WHY does the god need to exist for you
BIG letter=not yell, just show you to look there
-
But dying isn't so bad, if you believe there is an afterlife and better things to come.
So dying wasn't necessarily a punishment, just a natural consequence (I don't understand the mechanics of that).
-
ok, thats how tehy belive, but that doesnt explain why god is needed, and something cant be 200% so that tells against it self. but if you say that he was both son of god and god I can accept it, but not that he is 100% son and 100% god, not accepteble in mathematic
Your question was how could he be 100% god and 100% son. So I explained that he's not.
The question "why does there need to be a god' is a pointless question indeed. Either there is a God or there's not. 'need' doesn't enter anywhere in.
-
why make a machine that we dont need, why biuld a machine which can scratch my ass when I ahve a hand which do it just as good. if god doesnt need a creator, why would universe need it then?
-
Who said god didn't have a creator?
-
Who said god didn't have a creator?
WOW! :laugh:
That is one heck of a liberalist riligious view you have there.
I have always come up against the argument that God must exist because all this wonderful stuff couldn't have just got there on its own.
My trump card question was always "Who made God then?"
I guess that one is kind of wasted on you then. :rolleyes:
I will have to come up with something else I suppose.
:D PY :D
-
Most christians I meet say that God is perfect, but if this true, does this mean God has no needs or wants?
and If so why did he create the world, if he had no need or want of it?
If this is not true and God does have wants and needs, isn't this a flaw and so therefore God is not perfect?
-
I believe that we are embryonic gods ourselves. That is, God created us as a form of reproduction. Life is then a kind of puberty, when we grow to become more than we were.
That implies that there has been many generations of Gods creating children, some of whom grow to create children themselves.
That also explains God's motives. God is perfect, so he's found purpose in trying to raise us imperfect humans.
-
Cool B)
I like that idea.
Perhaps I can be a real Bot God one day
:D PY :D
-
An interesting note:
God is the father of all of us on Earth. There have been billions of humans, and if you count every human from the start to the end, that's alot.
Which would lend us to think it's an r-selection reproductive system, which has (as quoted in my freshman, 20 year old bio textbook):
early age of first reproduction
large brood size
single breeding season
small, numerous offspring
no parental care
short generation time
large reproductive effort per brood.
Yet religion claims that God is involved in the lives of all men. That implies active parenting, which is k-selection, which has:
delayed reproduction
small broods
multiple breeding seasons
few, large offspring
parental care
long generation time
smaller reproductive effort per brood.
This just doesn't add up! I guess having billions of children isn't considered a large brood size for an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent God. And don't ask me how he managed it with small broods (and what would multiple breeding seasons mean in this case?)
-
Lots of interesting philosophical ideas on God here! I think it's good things like this are discussed.
From my point of view, I think we humans cannot comprehend who God is and why He does certain things. Some filosepher(?) said: "To be able to understand ourselves, we'd need a bigger brain."
If we can't understand ourselves, how can we understand God, who is definately superior to us?
-
Everything is supposed to be the way it is , thats why I wrote this , thats why science is a mith, I am so %%$54 pissed of that mutation does not work correctly in all cases , dont worry I still have stuff to try , dont bother to reply
-
Lots of interesting philosophical ideas on God here! I think it's good things like this are discussed.
From my point of view, I think we humans cannot comprehend who God is and why He does certain things. Some filosepher(?) said: "To be able to understand ourselves, we'd need a bigger brain."
If we can't understand ourselves, how can we understand God, who is definately superior to us?
I agree to a point, but we should still be able to understand something of his motives, if not his methods. Even if not directly than through metaphor.
And that purpose? To bring his children to heaven. So why would he send them away in the first place if all he wants is to bring them back? There must be something useful to the experience of living on earth.
-
Face it. He is just playing with us.
We are some kind of gigantic game. (see my story posted earlier)
:D PY :D
-
If this is the game it has to be the poorest thought out game in history.
Teaches him not to rush a product to market before proper beta testing.
-
graphics and physics are pretty good
-
But where's the gameplay balance? Where's the cheat codes?
And the storyline sucks. Great characters, not enough plot.
-
Maybe this is the beta version
:D PY :D
-
Everything is supposed to be the way it is , thats why I wrote this , thats why science is a mith
are you saying sience is a myth? :angry: :burnup: and who is telling its supposed to be like this? it can just have been randomly choosed to be like this. ever read string theory? and when its about the bigger brain, I dont really agree, coz if it become bigger it might get worth coz its bieng slowed down the bigger it become. a man once said "the hardest thing for the brain is to understand it self" and numsgil, why must there must be something useful to the experience of living on earth? the meaning of life is very simple. dont understand why ppl want to make it more complicated than it is.
-
Maybe this is the bèta version
Yeah, and George W. Bush is a bug! :lol: :lol:
-
Just adding my two cents, as I find such philosophical thoughts interesting, and have some of my own, I doubt that they are truly original, most likely picked up from books and conversations and so on, but I play about with them in my own mind often enough that I tend to think of them as mine. I'll say now I can't find reason to have faith in any devine being (except perhaps fear that should such a being exist it will not forgive me for not believing).
God, Omnipotent and Omniscient...hang on if a being is omnipotent, that surely means can do anything, anything includes knowing everything (ie is already omniscient), already seems to have redudancy still moving on... Oh one moment, Omniscient, knows everything...that would include past present and future, darn there goes the freewill I like to believe I have (can't say for sure that I do have it, so I say I like to believe I do). Where was I in this ramble, ah yes Omnipotent, Omniscient, well then knowing exactly what will happen through out the existance of time and a universe to experiance the time, why bother...
Which leads me to suspect that should a creator exist it isn't omnipotent or omniscient, so what other properties could be ascribed to such a being...
Obviously the ability to create a universe, to act and exist outside time and space as they are both parts of the universe that this being supposedly created. this is where my imagination hits a limit I cannot really concieve of something outside of time and space, but as it can have no volume, mass, or indeed any physical property as currently understood, and needs to act without time, and time seems essential in all actions and reactions as currently understood (ie Cause _Then_ Effect, then inherently says after or at a later time (I understand that quantum mechanics may have some evidence for things that happen simultaniously bypassing cause and effect however the events still take time to happen)), so such a being could not be comparable to ourselves in any shape or form. Our process of thinking also takes time, so even in thought this supposed being would have to be completly different.*(see footnote)
So I say this being would be far beyond my comprehension and my ability to test.
Moving onwards, attempting to stretch my imagination I concieve of the afformentioned being, the creator, the natural question arrises how did this being come to be, at this point though we're outside of time, so no time or events or space or matter exist between between the begining of this being (whatever begining might mean in such a context) and his act of creation.
I find that believing in this being requires many more leaps of faith and imagination than believing that the universe spontainously created itself in this realm without space time etc (if the word "in" can be used about something completely dimensionless).
All this before I get to religion, which I'm not going to get to in this forum, as I don't know enough about all the religions of the world to write on them all and it would seem most unfair to pick on those that I do know about, but I will however add one last point, ment to some extent in humour...
Most religions it seems to me have a forgiving devine being (helps recruiting else all those prior years of not worshiping, or of worshiping another deity would stop people getting to heaven and if that already determined, why worship...) so being as most religions agree on this there is a good chance that should a devinity exist then this feature of it is true, hopefuly then this devinity will forgive me for not believing if it happens to exist.
Thanks for reading, apologies if anything I have said here causes offence, I do not attest to the truth of these things merely my own belief in them. Oh and I apologise for the use of nested parenthacies, messy I know, but I like them.
Math
* No doubt it will be noted that I leave out energy, light being a wave partical duality I'm not sure if in theory it could exist beyond space and time, as a wave alone, so for simplisty of thought I leave it out of the list of things that could not exist out side of space and time, in my opinion however it the wave partical duality would break down and light would no longer be recognisable in this context, the wave having no dimension to travel through... but thinking of such realms of non-existence is mind bending, enough for me to express doubt.
PS
Good short story PY, kinda invites thoughts about infitely recursive universes.