You’re conflating my metaphor with illogical arguments that I did not make.
I said nothing about God.
I said nothing about ‘deep’ foundations.
But nice try Mr. Alinsky.
And then you go on to make an illogical assumption about foundations that I would never make because there is evidence that disproves your notion:
“The problem lies in the fact that, unlike higher dimensions, God, or pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, with buildings, we actually design them. We discovered the principles required for their design through experimentation, and so we have those principles to rely on when we make our assumptions. Thus our assumptions are quite solid, being based on known and tested principles.”
Really? If those assumptions are so solid then what’s this...
“You’re conflating my metaphor with illogical arguments that I did not make.”
I’m not conflating anything. I applied the same type of metaphor you tried to apply to the question of higher dimensions to different questions to which such a metaphor is equally inapplicable. Of course you only arrive at “illogical arguments” with such an approach. They are illogical for exactly the same reason that your argument applying the metaphor to the question of higher dimensions was illogical.
“Really? If those assumptions are so solid then what’s this...”
A badly constructed building, which really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Remember, we’re not really discussing construction, or foundations, or any other nits that we might want to pick, but whether there is any actual evidence or logical reasons that should make us believe higher dimensions exist.