well.....................

Ok i give up, we will never find the meaning of life because we are not even talking about the same thing.

I can't explain a car, i can tell you how it works, but the person who made it could, all i am saying is as i saw things

Science dosen't always get it right, as you say

So what is the meaing of life then???

Thank you for replying.
Unfortunately your explanation is not consistent with reason.
The following follows:

1) "Dimensions being levels in which we live": It is evident that we live in some dimensions like lenght, width, depth, time-space, gravity as you mentioned. However, you mentioned that anti-matter is the opposite of matter.
It is not reasonable to be able to live in 2 opposites. You are either in A or B but no both. Moreover, anti-matter is not the opposite of matter, IT IS MATTER, composed with particles with sign reversal (electromagnetic charge).
This is science, the rest is science fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

2) "Spirit makes up all things": I don't know what you mean by "spirit" but then you mentioned about " God has given me an almost photographic spirit, in which I remember both past life's and what I viewed whilst dead."
What are "all things"?
A rock, a computer, an animal a plant, etc.. ? Do they have spirits? I wonder if God is playing "favorites" and giving some a "photographic spirit" and no to others...

3) "matter is visible anti matter is non visible.": You are half-way right. anti-matter is in matter. Science cannot deal with anything but matter which can be visible or invisible as quantum scientists can tell you.

4) "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so for matter to hold it's self up, there is anti matter."
The Law of action and reaction exists in matter. If something opposite did exist, the law also has to be the opposite, in other words, for every action there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction. This law desn't proof the existence of an opposite of matter, as a matter of fact, there are no "opposites" but rather a complementary.

5) "As for God being the 13th dimension, a dimension must contain the dimensions below it all things in the universe are contained by something, so God is all of the dimensions."
This premise is not reasonable. If God is all of the dimensions, as explained above He couldn't be "opposite" as in matter and anti-matter according to your own definition. God also should have a lenght, a width a depth, etc.. and as we all know, there is not something like that. If you are trying to say that God is "omnipresent", then this is a huge mistake.
All western religions talk about God as "the Father". You cannot have a relationship with everything and call it the "Father"...otherwise, if God is everywhere, He should also be in cats and dogs, etc... Irrational.

6) "the part that gets me and why I say it as if it is a fact, is that the commandments and the I-Ching's numerology align perfectly with this same pattern."

Those are all books written by humans and thus prone to mistakes. I could write a book too and my followers select it as "divine" and defend it to death, even though irrational it may be. We have our intellects, our reason to recognize who God is and to recognize true knowledge.
Your expereince is yours and that becomes your reality, but it cannot be called "the reality" when reasoning is not aligned with it.

If "we cannot bridge the gap between us and God. God must do it" why is there punishment? Is punishment consistent with love? Moreover, where is the "free will" to do as I choose to live if I will get "lovingly punished" (for eternity)...How can you love a God like that? Fear is a better word , but never love.
When you see someone born in a poor country, dying at an early age (without having the chance to be baptized and thus, gaining "God's salvation) and then having to go someplace for eternity...where is the love here? where is the opportunity for that person to do something about it? Was his short live "punishment" or was it a "reward"?

While love is a key teaching in Christianity, I disagree that it's the central teaching.

The central teaching of Christianity would be that man does not live up to God's standards, that this must result in punishment, and that God has provided a solution for those who actively choose it.

In other words, there is absolute right and absolute wrong. We cannont bridge the gap between us and God. God must do it.