Lets face it...

[quatona]

If you exist within a certain reality, you shouldn't expect to be able to detect scientifically the maker of the reality who exists outside of that reality because the detection methods are limited to within the reality.

Agreed. Which methods are NOT limited to within the reality?
And how did you get to presuppose a "maker" of said reality, anyway?

 

[Chesterton]

It must be Booko's Tangent Night or something. Sorry, but the authorship has been in dispute like the question of whether aliens built the pyramids is in dispute.

Please people, can we have an educated conversation here? Everyone who gets the History Channel knows that Shakespeare built the pyramids and space aliens wrote Hamlet. All under the direction of George Washington and The Illuminati, but that goes without saying.

I'm not following that either.

"Author" is one metaphor for God.

 

[Chesterton]

We can pick it back up anytime, if your god becomes detectable or definable.

I just realized what your "playing dumb" act reminds me of:

My idea was to keep to characters within the same universe, unless DC did an issue on Nietzsche's Overman that I was not previously aware of....

You know of another universe?

 

[TillICollapse]

You know of another universe?

To some, a better one than the one Superman comes from

 

[Chesterton]

You said if's were not allowed (first word of your response, bolding mine).

Your if's were not allowed because they didn't happen. My if is allowed because it's not an if; we do live within a certain reality.

I don't get the "exists outside of that reality". If something truly does exist outside of our reality, then I would agree that we wouldn't be able to detect it, essentially by definition. It would also largely make it irrelevant to us.

I guess it could be irrelevant to us, but not necessarily.

However if that something interacts with us, then we could possibly be able to detect it, if at no other point, during those interactions. It would not be impossible, IOW. Do you agree ? Shared unbroken causality aside and what would constitute "another reality" in any relevant way aside ...

Yes I agree.

 

[Chesterton]

This is an interesting idea Chesterton and I'm not sure that I agree; although I think about the double slit experiment where photons seem to act in a peculiar manner that, as far as I know, still hasn't been acceptably explained. Ok so maybe Yahweh is in a dimension that we have no physical means to investigate, maybe.

I agree.

 

[Chesterton]

Agreed. Which methods are NOT limited to within the reality?

Methods not limited to within the reality would be those practicable from outside the reality. Examples that come to mind would be responses to prayers, and miracles. The detection would depend on them coming from God, outside of this reality. He would be choosing whether to allow the detection.

And how did you get to presuppose a "maker" of said reality, anyway?

Seems like a reasonable supposition to me.

 

[TillICollapse]

Your if's were not allowed because they didn't happen. My if is allowed because it's not an if; we do live within a certain reality.

Which is why I shouldn't have followed you down the hole of a straw man analogy.

Yes I agree.

Which brings us back to the crux anyways. If you agree that detection would be possible within our certain reality, I don't get how you make the jump that whatever-we-may-be-detecting has to fall outside of our reality at some point ? Why make that leap ? Referencing a relationship between a creation and it's creator still falls flat. I can build a house and live in it. I can write a biography. Etc and so forth. I don't see where it necessitates it, as you seem to suggest.

 

[agua]

Methods not limited to within the reality would be those practicable from outside the reality. Examples that come to mind would be responses to prayers, and miracles. The detection would depend on them coming from God, outside of this reality. He would be choosing whether to allow the detection.

I agree; and will like to add the activities of Spirit Creatures which can only be seen when they change form in some way to enter our dimension/reality, or when Yahweh seems to make someone in our domension capable of viewing them eg. Elisha ( and his servant ) viewed the fiery chariots etc.

 

[agua]

Which brings us back to the crux anyways. If you agree that detection would be possible within our certain reality, I don't get how you make the jump that whatever-we-may-be-detecting has to fall outside of our reality at some point ? Why make that leap ? Referencing a relationship between a creation and it's creator still falls flat. I can build a house and live in it. I can write a biography. Etc and so forth. I don't see where it necessitates it, as you seem to suggest.

Do you believe that Spirt creatures exist that may operate unseen/undetectable and may appear and vanish ?

 

[Davian]

I just realized what your "playing dumb" act

Do you need for me to be lying? Seriously?

Does it make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out that your god, by what you have offered in this thread, is not detectable or definable?

reminds me of:

Was that intended to be hurtful? Which of us is holding on to ancient beliefs?

You know of another universe?

Our universe, the DC universe, the Marvel universe...

 

[Chesterton]

Do you need for me to be lying? Seriously?

No, why would I need that? It's irritating.

Does it make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out that your god, by what you have offered in this thread, is not detectable or definable?

No, it's something I've tried to point out to others many times over the years.

Was that intended to be hurtful?

No, it was a compliment actually. If you're unfamiliar with that SNL comedy skit, the unfrozen caveman lawyer is very intelligent and shrewd, although he wins arguments in front of juries by pretending not to be.

Which of us is holding on to ancient beliefs?

Both of us, Davian. Like I said, read more.

Our universe, the DC universe, the Marvel universe...

Can they interact?

 

[TillICollapse]

Do you believe that Spirt creatures exist that may operate unseen/undetectable and may appear and vanish ?

There's a lot in that question to clarify. What do you mean by "undetectable" and what do you mean by "Spirit creatures" for example. There are things which may operate unseen/undetectable in certain contexts and may appear and vanish, yet are not "Spirit creatures". Very high frequency radio waves, for example. Unseen, undetectable without technology/tools, yet given the proper tool/tech may appear and vanish (television) and obviously are detectable.

My questioning is that I don't get why the leap is made to "outside reality". I'm not one claiming that for God to exist, He must be outside reality, or exist outside of "reality", or be undetectable, etc. If one believes in miracles for example, or that God or any other type of being (we can use the word "spiritual" as a generic placeholder term I suppose) can interact with the environment/reality/etc ... why the leap to, "They must be outside reality," ? Are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum outside reality ? Can you envision a point in history where a TV would have been considered evidence that there were things outside our reality, interacting with our reality ?

 

[quatona]

Methods not limited to within the reality would be those practicable from outside the reality.(quote]
As you rightly pointed out, you however are within reality.

Examples that come to mind would be responses to prayers, and miracles.

Whatever it is, you experience it from within reality.

The detection would depend on them coming from God, outside of this reality. He would be choosing whether to allow the detection.

That´s not an answer to the question how - from within reality - you know you have detected something outside reality.

Seems like a reasonable supposition to me.

Well, if "seems like...to me" has become a substantiation of an argument in the meantime, I guess I am too old-fashioned for this discussion.

 

[agua]

There's a lot in that question to clarify. What do you mean by "undetectable" and what do you mean by "Spirit creatures" for example. There are things which may operate unseen/undetectable in certain contexts and may appear and vanish, yet are not "Spirit creatures". Very high frequency radio waves, for example. Unseen, undetectable without technology/tools, yet given the proper tool/tech may appear and vanish (television) and obviously are detectable.

I'm specifically refering to Angels etc. Do you believe Angels can appear at times in a form that we can detect, and then change into a form that we cannot detect/vanish ?

My questioning is that I don't get why the leap is made to "outside reality". I'm not one claiming that for God to exist, He must be outside reality, or exist outside of "reality", or be undetectable, etc. If one believes in miracles for example, or that God or any other type of being (we can use the word "spiritual" as a generic placeholder term I suppose) can interact with the environment/reality/etc ... why the leap to, "They must be outside reality," ? Are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum outside reality ? Can you envision a point in history where a TV would have been considered evidence that there were things outside our reality, interacting with our reality ?

I'm addressing specifically things which relate to the interactions of Yahweh, and Angels etc. and if you answer the above questyion i'll have a better idea of how you will suggest these Angels appear, at times and are detectable, and at other times aren't ( visible and detectable)

Everything concerning the electromagnetic spectrum is detectable ( or at least the things we've detected are ) and yet according to the double slit experiment we still don't have a completely understandable data set in the realm of photons, as yet.

Are you maybe suggesting that Angels operate inside our currently varifiable/detectable experimental dimension, at all times ?

 

[Davian]

No, why would I need that? It's irritating.

Why then the accusation of play-acting?

No, it's something I've tried to point out to others many times over the years.

Have you pointed it out to yourself?

No, it was a compliment actually. If you're unfamiliar with that SNL comedy skit, the unfrozen caveman lawyer is very intelligent and shrewd, although he wins arguments in front of juries by pretending not to be.

I am not familiar with it.

Both of us, Davian.

Speak for yourself.

Like I said, read more.

Can you be more vague?

Can they interact?

Indeed. We can see into their universes using devices such as "comic books" and "movies", and on occasion, they can overlap.

DC vs. Marvel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[agua]

quatona Whatever it is, you experience it from within reality.

​

That´s not an answer to the question how - from within reality - you know you have detected something outside reality.

Well, if "seems like...to me" has become a substantiation of an argument in the meantime, I guess I am too old-fashioned for this discussion.

It does answerthe question if we accept that something from another dimension, that can not be detected from our dimension, changes form to inetact with our dimension ie. we will need to enetr the dimension the causer is in, to detect the causer, unless the Causer eters our dimension, in the way Jesus did etc.

 

[Chesterton]

Speak for yourself.

Can you be more vague?

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are each as old as the hills.

Indeed. We can see into their universes using devices such as "comic books" and "movies", and on occasion, they can overlap.

DC vs. Marvel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. Superman and Hulk did not detect each other on their own; they needed supernatural help. From the article:

"Two godly brothers who personify the DC and Marvel Universes become aware of the other's existence,... The story had an 'out of universe' component..."
​

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm specifically refering to Angels etc. Do you believe Angels can appear at times in a form that we can detect, and then change into a form that we cannot detect/vanish ?

I'm addressing specifically things which relate to the interactions of Yahweh, and Angels etc. and if you answer the above questyion i'll have a better idea of how you will suggest these Angels appear, at times and are detectable, and at other times aren't ( visible and detectable)

Everything concerning the electromagnetic spectrum is detectable ( or at least the things we've detected are ) and yet according to the double slit experiment we still don't have a completely understandable data set in the realm of photons, as yet.

Are you maybe suggesting that Angels operate inside our currently varifiable/detectable experimental dimension, at all times ?

Concerning whether or not a being can appear and vanish, etc and so forth, and do what many would call what "angels" may or may not do ... I don't typically like stating my own beliefs in generalized format, unless I'm willing to back it up with at least examples from my own life and tell those examples as to why I believe such and such a thing. Having said that, yes I believe it's possible for *beings* to do such things. I'm keeping it generalized because I'm answering your question in a generalized format. And yes I have anecdotes, but I'll probably not type them out unless someone realllly wants to hear them. I can be long winded of course

But what I'm not saying, is that it's not possible to detect what they are, or that they didn't take place in "this reality", etc. In all my experiences, I believe those experiences take place "in reality" lol. Apart from experiencing them directly or those involved in experiencing such things ... it should, in theory (for the lack of a better expression), be detectable. Imo. What is reflecting in reality, IOW ... assuming it's really happening ... can be observable, etc. If it's merely taking place in someone's mind, or there is no credible reason to assume it's not taking place in someone's mind ... hallucination, delusion, etc can be put forth as possibilities. They are still taking place in reality however: they are just all taking place in one's mind. We may not have the current tech to be able to translate image for image another person's hallucination lol, but we can infer medically certain things about a person who may or may not be hallucinating based on a variety of factors. If the event is *actually* taking place, not a delusion, and has a more difficult explanation to be considered, just because we cannot yet explain fully the mechanism behind what is being observed, doesn't mean one needs to make the leap to "it's outside reality" either. To do so ... one may miss a more mundane explanation still, or furthermore, what if it actually IS taking place and is a phenomena we have yet to collectively explain or understand ? Making the leap to "it's outside reality" seems a stretch, because not only does it render it meaningless and offer up a Deus Ex Machina type explanation that isn't satisfactory, but it doesn't fit the evidence: whatever it is, it IS taking place in reality. Be it delusion, mundane explanation, or something more potentially exotic. I just don't get the "We need to start making up new contradictory concepts to explain stuff," route. Something nothingness, and outside of reality reality. I don't see where it's necessary.

Like bringing up "it's from another universe" for example. Suppose you have another universe in existence, one very similar to our own. A variation of the MWI here ... for it to truly be "another universe" that is completely outside of our own, the two can arguably not interact. This is one argument concerning this POV ... the two cannot interact, because once they do, they no longer are separate universes. They are joined, if at no other point, in the chain of causality. So even if something crosses over from one universe into the other, at that point in time, they are joined. Like a bridge joining two landmasses. They are separate land masses, but reside in the "same reality". Destroy the bridge, it doesn't matter ... the effect is there: there is a moment in the causal chain, where something from the other universe, came into "our reality" or whatever.

From our perspective, on a classical scale, causality remains unbroken as far as we know. The black hole information paradox, and perhaps some others at times, have questioned whether or not causality breaks down in the classical environment, but as far as I know, causality is maintained. It breaks down arguably before the Planck era (by some theories), but so do physics as we know them in general. Regardless, in our reality NOW, we experience causality in an unbroken chain, arguably.

So if something interacts with our causal chain, it's part of our universe, part of our history, etc. To say it's another reality is misleading ... because it has a moment in time where it interacts with OURS. And since we do not know precisely the origin of all things, how can we know for sure that such a universe didn't exist and interact with us at another point prior to our known causality ? Our place in the causal chain essentially, imo, renders an understanding of an ultimate origin meaningless from an objective standpoint.

Thus, "another reality" is somewhat irrelevant and meaningless. This is one argument. For it to be another reality, or another universe, it CANNOT interact with ours in any form or fashion, otherwise it is part of our reality. Those points are evidence of this, if for no other reason, the causal chain we currently experience. Once there is an event, the two are linked. Can they be different ? Sure. Can rules apply in one that don't necessarily apply in another ? Sure, why not. We already have the quantum environment and the classical. But are they "separate realities" ? The argument could be made that they are not, because they interact lol. They share moments in the causal chain. Etc and so forth. So long as they do not interact, or share causality, then they can remain undetectable and separate. And also potentially meaningless and irrelevant.

I'm not saying this is the only perspective one can have, I'm saying it's one such argument. I don't see why the leap is made to "It's outside reality," etc and so forth.

 

[Davian]

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are each as old as the hills.

There is always theological noncognitivism. That does work with an undetectable and undefinable "God" such as yours.

Theological noncognitivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. Superman and Hulk did not detect each other on their own; they needed supernatural help. From the article:

"Two godly brothers who personify the DC and Marvel Universes become aware of the other's existence,... The story had an 'out of universe' component..."
​

In fiction, anything is possible.