Lets face it...

[Chesterton]

In fiction, anything is possible.

Did you know that according to quantum physics, the chair you're sitting on could suddenly, spontaneously change into a golden elephant with wings? Right now. It's very, very unlikey, but it's possible.

 

[agua]

... Having said that, yes I believe it's possible for *beings* to do such things...

Ok this is what I wanted you know. This being the case do you believe that while these Angels are in the form of which you are not experiencing them according to the methods you may detect thgem, that they're still in existence ?

 

[TillICollapse]

Did you know that according to quantum physics, the chair you're sitting on could suddenly, spontaneously change into a golden elephant with wings? Right now. It's very, very unlikey, but it's possible.

No I don't believe quantum mechanics suggests anything like this. Can you explain how aspects within quantum mechanics suggests this ?

Ok this is what I wanted you know. This being the case do you believe that while these Angels are in the form of which you are not experiencing them according to the methods you may detect thgem, that they're still in existence ?

You are using the term "angel", I'm being generic as that implies a lot in this generic format. I try to often speak the language of the audience, and this forum has a varied audience.

Having said that, if such a being were to vanish before me, along with aspects of the environment, etc ... and this really happened in reality and wasn't an illusion or delusion ... I don't see how I could say they weren't still "in existence". So yes I believe they could possibly still be in existence, especially if you saw them again at some later date to confirm they still were in existence. When I close my laptop up, I assume you are still in existence and don't disappear into another reality simply because I'm no longer communicating with you, etc.

 

[Davian]

Did you know that according to quantum physics, the chair you're sitting on could suddenly, spontaneously change into a golden elephant with wings? Right now. It's very, very unlikey, but it's possible.

 

[agua]

You are using the term "angel", I'm being generic as that implies a lot in this generic format. I try to often speak the language of the audience, and this forum has a varied audience.

Having said that, if such a being were to vanish before me, along with aspects of the environment, etc ... and this really happened in reality and wasn't an illusion or delusion ... I don't see how I could say they weren't still "in existence". So yes I believe they could possibly still be in existence, especially if you saw them again at some later date to confirm they still were in existence. When I close my laptop up, I assume you are still in existence and don't disappear into another reality simply because I'm no longer communicating with you, etc.

Sure you may be generic, if you like. So now we have these beings who can be detected, while you're experiencing them, but still exist when they vanish. Do you believe you will have a method of detecting these beings while they're not visible/interacting ( while they're in the state of dematerial ) ?

ETA. if you do think they may detected while not visible/interacting, by what method do you think they may be detected ? ( maybe you suggest they're light or some other form we can measure ? )

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure you may be generic, if you like. So now we have these beings who can be detected, while you're experiencing them, but still exist when they vanish. Do you believe you will have a method of detecting these beings while they're not visible/interacting ( while they're in the state of dematerial ) ?

ETA. if you do think they may detected while not visible/interacting, by what method do you think they may be detected ? ( maybe you suggest they're light or some other form we can measure ? )

"Dematerial" is a purely sci-fi term, AFAIK. So I'll skip that term ...

If a being were before me, and then performed a feat which seemed to defy classical physics, etc, in this context (and assuming no illusion, delusion, etc), then I would assume it may be possible to detect them in some fashion while they were present, whether they were visible or not. How ? I have no idea Attempts to find methods to detect such things are frequently in the realm of the paranormal, fringe science, and pseudoscience, yes ? Thus far, AFAIK, none of them have been conclusively successful, although tbh I haven't studied at length the realm of the paranormal in regards to attempt to identify such things. Only passively, so I'm aware of a few things. This doesn't mean it's not possible, imo. Locard's exchange principle may come into play as well ... in short, if such a being were to interact with the environment, something would be left behind, or effected, to where such an interaction could at least be measured in some capacity.

To take this idea to a simple application: suppose we are able to identify one day, the presence (and thus the absence of) something akin to this "stuff". Take any person who claims to have the "Holy Spirit" or be "Spirit filled" or "spiritual". All one would need to do, is test for the presence of said "stuff". If it's there, such a claim could be corroborated. If not, oh well.

No more need for a myriad of claims, labels, etc by billions of people. You either "have" it, or you don't, etc and so forth.

 

[Chesterton]

It's mentioned in a few posts in this thread by the well-respected Wiccan Child:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7388371-13/

The page and the posts are long but you can just search for the word "gold". I think in college classes the more common example for discussion, is that a sun could spontaneously appear in your pocket. I went with the gold elephant just 'cause, what's the difference? Besides, I recently saw you give approval to the idea of our universe being created uncaused from a quantum fluctuation, so who are you to suggest that truth can't be as strange as fiction?

 

[Received]

It's mentioned in a few posts in this thread by the well-respected Wiccan Child:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7388371-13/

The page and the posts are long but you can just search for the word "gold". I think in college classes the more common example for discussion, is that a sun could spontaneously appear in your pocket. I went with the gold elephant just 'cause, what's the difference? Besides, I recently saw you give approval to the idea of our universe being created uncaused from a quantum fluctuation, so who are you to suggest that truth can't be as strange as fiction?

Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. -- Terence McKenna​

 

[Davian]

It's mentioned in a few posts in this thread by the well-respected Wiccan Child:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7388371-13/

The page and the posts are long but you can just search for the word "gold". I think in college classes the more common example for discussion, is that a sun could spontaneously appear in your pocket.

Pop quiz: What was the time frame involved in that example?

I went with the gold elephant just 'cause, what's the difference? Besides, I recently saw you give approval to the idea of our universe being created uncaused from a quantum fluctuation, so who are you to suggest that truth can't be as strange as fiction?

Where did I make this alleged approval?

 

[agua]

..."I would assume it may be possible to detect them in some fashion while they were present, whether they were visible or not. How ? I have no idea Attempts to find methods to detect such things are frequently in the realm of the paranormal, fringe science, and pseudoscience, yes ?
...
To take this idea to a simple application: suppose we are able to identify one day, the presence (and thus the absence of) something akin to this "stuff". Take any person who claims to have the "Holy Spirit" or be "Spirit filled" or "spiritual". All one would need to do, is test for the presence of said "stuff". If it's there, such a claim could be corroborated. If not, oh well.

No more need for a myriad of claims, labels, etc by billions of people. You either "have" it, or you don't, etc and so forth.

Ok cool. You suggest you have no idea how you may test for the presence of this invisible being/stuff, and yet suggest it would be a simple test ( "all one would need to do" ) to identify this being/stuff.

Does this imply that you believe such a test is possible, and if the being/stuff is no longer part of our dimension ( we acknowledge other dimensions ), that scientists should be able to make tangible, something that's intangible ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant.​

No, it's not. This is a gross mischaracterisation.

Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”.

Does invoking magic make a claim about the universe's origins more credible?

And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. -- Terence McKenna

McKenna should speak for himself here.​

 

[Chesterton]

Pop quiz: What was the time frame involved in that example?

I don't think one was given.

Where did I make this alleged approval?

In some thread in this forum within the last few weeks or so you posted a link to an article about it.

 

[Davian]

I don't think one was given.

lol. Look it up.

In some thread in this forum within the last few weeks or so you posted a link to an article about it.

Don't mistake that for an endorsement, approval, or belief.

 

[Chesterton]

lol. Look it up.

What are you talking about? A time frame for what?

Don't mistake that for an endorsement, approval, or belief.

Sorry, I should have known that about you by now. So what do you believe about cosmology then?

 

[Davian]

What are you talking about? A time frame for what?

How long to wait for those things to happen. Do your homework.

Sorry, I should have known that about you by now. So what do you believe about cosmology then?

I believe it is very interesting.

Were we working towards a point here, or are you just being argumentative?

 

[Davian]

Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. -- Terence McKenna​

"It makes no sense."

The appeal to common sense is an informal fallacy, a variation on the argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chesterton]

How long to wait for those things to happen. Do your homework.

I don't see how a time frame is important, but whatever.

I believe it is very interesting.

Were we working towards a point here, or are you just being argumentative?

I'm being Socratic.

The original point was that creatures in universes likely can't be aware of what's outside their universes without outside assistance, because from the creature's point of view, universe means everything there is. And you said something like "anything's possible in fiction".

More importantly, Superman obviously would win, conditioned upon there being no kryptonite on Earth, because Batman's very rich, and if the fight was pre-arranged for some time in the future Batman could possibly hire geologists or detectives or someone to find it.

 

[Davian]

I don't see how a time frame is important, but whatever.

Some of the time frames far exceed the estimated time for the heat death of the universe. I won't be here to care about it.

I'm being Socratic.

I would not have guessed, hence my query.

The original point was that creatures in universes likely can't be aware of what's outside their universes without outside assistance, because from the creature's point of view, universe means everything there is. And you said something like "anything's possible in fiction".

Indeed. Look at all of the things that have been attributed to deities.

More importantly, Superman obviously would win, conditioned upon there being no kryptonite on Earth, because Batman's very rich, and if the fight was pre-arranged for some time in the future Batman could possibly hire geologists or detectives or someone to find it.

The general consensus, from what I gather from the comic book community, is that, given time to prepare, Batman will always win. And, <spoilers> that is how the stories play out.

 

[Chesterton]

I would not have guessed, hence my query.

Of course you wouldn't have guessed it because you don't know what it is.

"gods are like fictional" which will be followed by "oh I didn't say gods are fictional"

You say you don't believe anything relevant to these forums, and you have no expressible ideas. It's gotten old, there's nothing to talk about. I'm out. Best wishes.

 

[TillICollapse]

It's mentioned in a few posts in this thread by the well-respected Wiccan Child:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7388371-13/

The page and the posts are long but you can just search for the word "gold". I think in college classes the more common example for discussion, is that a sun could spontaneously appear in your pocket. I went with the gold elephant just 'cause, what's the difference? Besides, I recently saw you give approval to the idea of our universe being created uncaused from a quantum fluctuation, so who are you to suggest that truth can't be as strange as fiction?

I know this is directed elsewhere, but still answers some of my own post.

I don't believe QM suggests that a brain could suddenly turn to gold either. The idea of "anything can happen at any given moment" is a misnomer from what I understand. I'm arm-chair aware of quantum tunneling, for example ... yet it doesn't suggest things on the scale of what you're describing, as far as I know. I believe this type of thinking is the way a laymen (including myself) would begin to draw conclusions, but as I recall, these type of conclusions of gold elephants suddenly appearing in place of a chair, etc ... have zero probability, etc. I would have asked WC the same thing and said the same thing: I don't believe QM suggests that, could you please explain it.

Ok cool. You suggest you have no idea how you may test for the presence of this invisible being/stuff, and yet suggest it would be a simple test ( "all one would need to do" ) to identify this being/stuff.

I didn't say it would be simple. If we had the ability to detect it in such a manner (say, with tech) then using the tech would be "all one would need to do." I didn't say it would be simple. I don't know how to make an iPod, yet all I have to do to turn it on is .... etc and so forth.

And no, I have no idea how one would test for such a thing at this point. As I said, from what I know, most attempts are in the realm of fringe science and are not conclusive or recognized by the scientific community as far as I know (consider EVP for example).

Does this imply that you believe such a test is possible, and if the being/stuff is no longer part of our dimension ( we acknowledge other dimensions ), that scientists should be able to make tangible, something that's intangible ?

I wasn't saying anything about tangibility or anything of the sort. You keep going in these directions I haven't gone lol. I'm stating something much more elementary ... you keep adding things to it. I'm not adding to it, such as dematerializing, other dimensions, other realities, etc. I understand considering possibilities and whatnot to try and explain phenomena ... I get that. I get that we latch onto some ideas where crazy stuff is happening recognizably (QM, for example, which seems to be a go-to for many believers nowadays) ... and try to conceptualize theories to explain what we believe, etc and so forth. However I'm keeping it simple: if it's happening in reality, as an event, then it can arguably be observed/detected/measured/etc in some capacity. With what tool or tech, I have no idea. If it will ever be possible, I have no idea. But I'm not jumping to leaps necessarily of other realities and outside our realities, etc and so forth. The way many believers present such concepts, is that they HAVE to be that way. It's the only possible explanation. And then some special pleading, circular arguments, etc ... and ouila. I don't get that jump.

My own personal experiences ... I try to let them speak for themselves. If something disappeared before me, it disappeared before me lol. It doesn't mean it's in another dimension, or that it dematerializes, or that it's now invisibile but still there, or that it came from outside reality and returned to it, etc and so forth. I try to look at everything surrounding the context as well as "just the facts" as best as I can understand them. Adding a bunch of things to them and then treating those additions as though they are necessary to understand them ... I try not to do that. Furthermore, putting labels to them and pushing those labels as though they must fit ... I try not to do that either. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.