I would like to get involved with this debate, but I do not see how we could productively discuss the possibility of inferring the existence of a deity if we deny causality. I do not see how we can productively discuss much at all, in fact.
We are compelled by our constitution to speak in terms of likely stories.
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.[/quote]
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I would like to get involved with this debate, but I do not see how we could productively discuss the possibility of inferring the existence of a deity if we deny causality. I do not see how we can productively discuss much at all, in fact.
We are compelled by our constitution to speak in terms of likely stories.[/quote]
Hey, our constitution makes stories likely…
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
Let’s get down to the core of the matter, you believe there is no God and hence because of that all religion looks pretty much ridiculous, which makes sense. The real question is how you arrived at the conclusion there is no God. How do you “know”? I would assume you know because guessing really isn’t good enough. So let’s take religion totally out of the picture and tell me why you think there is no such thing as God…
I’ll take this one.
I think there is no such thing as God for the same reason I don’t think there is a flying, shit encrusted, tea cup orbiting the surface of Venus that is totally invisible and cannot be detected by any means.
Proof is the burden of the believer. One cannot prove a negative.
The burden is on the questioner. If you ask the question then you have to answer and justify it. You cannot truly know anything to actually exist. Descarte broke it down to where he could only prove existence by his awareness that something exists. Hence, the only thing he could deduce exists is awareness. Mind you he could not prove anything physical exists. We subsist on probability and likeliness, not certainty. You cannot know all the properties of any single object, physical or metaphysical.
Bottom line is that you cannot know God does not exist because you cannot sense Him with your 5 senses. Your 5 senses offer you a limited but functional reality, but surly you cannot say that if it cannot be sensed it does not exist. I have a very specific idea in my head right now, you cannot see it, feel it, taste, hear it, or smell it. You have no idea what it is and even if you did you can’t know if it exists or not. Can you prove it does or does not exist? I could be lying you know.
No, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
You make shit up, you proof it. There is no way to prove something does not exist so your version means asking for the impossible.
Did you not make a claim? Just because you answer “No” to the question, “does God exist?”, does not excuse you from having to justify why you think he does not exist when the other perfectly viable answer is “Yes”. It’s weak and arrogant to say that because you do not believe in God that you are under no burden what so ever to justify your belief.
But if you wish, I like the Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Go find the argument and tell me why it is false. The argument is long and I won’t post it here because of that. It is my favorite though. It basically argues that everything comes from something where as you are arguing, or refusing to argue the point that everything comes from nothing.
God as the prime mover? Really?
There are so many holes in this, should I even begin?
“A cause” does not mean God, further, what or who caused God, then, “causation” is an a priori categorie necessary to experience anything but also very tricky because of it.
Logically, you cannot even prove that there is such a thing as cause and effect, so basing an argument on causation is flawed from the start.
edit:
And if you could prove causality, which you can´t, then it would still not work because before there was our universe the idea of cause and effect made no sense.
For there to be cause and effect, if there is such a thing, there has to be a universe that allows for it, to argue that a universe must have a cause is therefore in and of itself absurd.
So let me get this strait. You are saying that cause and effect relationships do not exist? Hang on…I am still laughing…
OK, I think I have gathered myself. If you do not believe cause and effect relationships exist then every thing is random. If cause and effect does not exist, then neither does, science, math, history, basically no form of study exists either because all of it is based on cause and effect. That is how the universe is ordered.
There are problems with the cosmological argument, but you missed them by a mile. But hey everything is ramdom right? I am accidentally typing this. The letters are randomly appearing on my screen and just happened to be ordered in the way I want them to be, just by chance…No that can’t be, “chance” in this case, would be a cause.
LOL!!! Damn, I needed a good laugh, thanks!
I did not say everything is random. I said that you cannot only not prove that there is such a thing as cause and effect, I also said that in any specific case you cannot prove that a certain cause “caused” a certain effect.
All that exists physically and metaphysically is contingent on a predecessor. If “A” then “B”, If not “A” then “B” cannot exist. I challenge you to give a single example where anything that exists, was not caused by something else. Any example will do, yes, quantum physics too.
Further, causes must necessitate their effects.
I also said that what you call causality is a category you have within you and must logically have been there before you could experience something like causality.
The fact that you can experience causality says more about what you are equipped to experience and less about what the universe “really” looks like.
What one can experience vs. what actually is is irrelevent. The fact the “A” caused “B” to happen has nothing to do with human experience. Understand causality did not bring it into existence. Causality existed before and will exist long after us…
I also said that in the “place” that was before our universe, not everything must have had a cause, if indeed everything must have a cause , because such a claim can only be true, if it is true, within our universe which was not existing then, because its very origin is in question.
What you call that which is uncaused? What kind of thing is that?
I am afraid to say that you do not get it.
You simply take some things for granted that are in no way a logical necessity.
Your whole point is that causality simply must exist because you say so and that that is also true for the beginning of our universe even though the concept of causality needs our universe.
These are relatively simple philosophical questions and most of what I posted is not even questioned any more, though the answers tend to be elaborated.
You might want to read into the nature of causality a little bit:
This is a brief summary/discussion of Hume´s idea:
Causation
Hume�??s views on the concept of causation are a subject of much dispute, and there are at least three different interpretations represented in the literature. These are:
(i) The Logical Positivist interpretation
(ii) The Sceptical Realist interpretation
(iii) The Quasi-Realist and Projectivist interpretation
According to the positivist view, Hume is attempting to specify the semantic content of the concept of causation �?? i.e. what we mean when we deploy causal terms. The traditional analytical take on Hume�??s answer is that it is to be found in the regular succession of certain of our impressions; their �??constant conjunction�??. On this interpretation, Hume is saying that statements such as “A caused B” are equivalent to propositions such as “Whenever A occurs, then B does”, where “whenever” refers to all possible observations of A and B.[26]
This has been rejected, however, by Sceptical Realists, who argue that Hume was not discussing the meaning of causal terms, but rather their source, or their causal origin, in our experience. The major disagreement with the Positivist view is over Hume�??s take on the idea of Necessary Connexion. According to the Positivists, as we have seen, causality consists only in regularities in perceptions, but the Sceptical Realists point out that Hume also thought there to be a Necessary Connexion between causes and effects that goes unperceived.[27] The reason Hume is called a Sceptical Realist on this take is that he did not think we could have perceptual access to the necessary connexion, and thus we have no reason to believe in it (hence Scepticism);[28] but at the same time we are compelled by natural instinct to believe there to be a necessary connexion when we observe a regularity or constancy in our perceptions, and this natural belief is of an external causal necessity (hence Realism).[29]
However, the Sceptical Realist reading has been rejected by Simon Blackburn, who instead proposes a Projectivist and Quasi-Realist interpretation.[30] According to this position, Hume was not arguing that we have a concept of a Real necessary connexion, where “Real” means that our idea represents something in the world, external to human minds. Instead, our concept of causation is composed of two elements (corresponding to Hume’s two famous “definitions” of causation),[31] the first of which is the regular succession given in perception, but the second of which, the necessary connexion, is actually a product of a functional change in the human mind which allows us to anticipate and predict future events based on past regularities. So the Quasi-Realist denies that the necessary connexion is a property existing in the world (hence he denies straightforward Realism), and instead sees it as representative of a change in our mental states and practical attitudes. However, this does not amount to a full-on Anti-Realism about Causation, because the Quasi-Realist is also a Projectivist, who holds that it is perfectly legitimate to “project” our predictions by making statements which express the belief in a necessary connexion. It is not that we talk “as-if” there were a necessary connexion, when really there is not: rather, our talk of there being a necessary connexion is a way of voicing a distinctive mental set, which allows us to explain and predict the behaviour of objects, and hopefully come to control them too. Thus when Hume says that �??nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion�??,[32] he is not diagnosing an error in human thought, but merely giving a scientific explanation of how our concepts arise.
Which mean my point still stands:
Causality is an interesting idea but you cannot prove that it exists, therefore you cannot build an argument upon it.
If it should exist it requires a universe that allows for it, f.E. no time, no causality.
Seen that way a prime mover cannot have caused our universe to begin because without our universe there is no time, therefore no before and after, therefore nothing you would perceive as causality.
Causality exists whether we can perceive it or not, the temporal aspect be damned. Causality is simply the relation of action of one “thing” having a result. The most concrete example of causality is simple math. 1+1=2, if you have one, object, widget, whatever and add another you will have two things. The action of adding in this case resulted in having a greater number of the “thing” than before. This is true in any realm, universe, time or space and it is not contingent in any way, shape or form on human perception or understanding.
Hume did try to pose an interesting proposition of a 3rd element of causation. That a cause did not necessitate its effects but that there was a third element in causation that alter the resultant effect of a cause. He never denied causation, he had an issue with the fact that all things being the same, such as in a controlled scientific experiment, the results weren’t always the the same. That things are probable rather than absolute. He also used this third element of causation to try and explain away miricles. Hume’s biggest problem was that causation was locked in the temporal realm for him, simultaneous causation was not a reality for him. He didn’t deny causation, he just thought the definition to narrow to accommodate.
This projectivist concept is a less effective way of saying the something that everything exists in a bubble independent of on another, that our notion of causation is a useful illusion. That is simply bullshit.
Causation exists independent of our perception of it and independent of time and space. This was proven by the EPR effect.
Your task is simple. To prove me wrong all you have to do a give an example of something that was not caused. A single thing will do.[/quote]
All that remains to be said is this:
You are very likely wrong. If you are right, please put that into a convincing argument and push philosophy in the 21st century.
Until then I do not know how to discuss this point with you.
[quote]orion wrote:
All that remains to be said is this:
You are very likely wrong. If you are right, please put that into a convincing argument and push philosophy in the 21st century.
Until then I do not know how to discuss this point with you.
[/quote]
What are you having a problem understanding? If I am wrong, prove it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”? [/quote]
I did not say time was an illusion- I kind of said time is a category we think in.
That is not the same.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
Fair enough, but methinks you’re avoiding the question: “Dost thou believe that time exists?”
A simple “yes” or “no” will do ;)[/quote]
It cant be answered with a yes or no and it would be wrong to say that it could be in the sense that you are referring to which i assume is in terms of it “being” a non physical entity.
Time is a unit that man created. The fact that people see time as anything other than the tool it was created for is reading to much into it.
To be able to “turn back time” is merely use of a tool to calculate exactly how far back the person wants to go back in their constant flow of actions to be able to repeat or change one of those actions.
Time can be broken down into milli-seconds or bundled up into centuries…it is a mathematical calculation…that time i believe in as a tool…it is something that i can manipulate to suit me where possible.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument. [/quote]
Damn good post katzenjammer!
Also, that is why science starts with a theory and then it stands as fact unless disproved. NOTHING is even proven, only disproved.
So we are all running around feeling comfortable that we (man) know it all, when in fact, we are basing this on a bunch of ideas (theories) that to date have not been disproved. Nothing has ever been proven!
[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”? [/quote]
The clock face comment was a generality i used as an example.
It is a tool. nothing more. Rust is a chemical reaction. The earth revolves on it own axis as well as around the sun. This was “Measured” by the Inca. Babies into adults complicated chemistry that eventually burns out or malfunctions.
Surely cannot claim that “time” as we know has any influence over anything other than as a measurement.
If so tell me how…I am intrigued…
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine. 
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
[/quote]
Actually, exactly that follows.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Damn good post katzenjammer!
Also, that is why science starts with a theory and then it stands as fact unless disproved. NOTHING is even proven, only disproved.
So we are all running around feeling comfortable that we (man) know it all, when in fact, we are basing this on a bunch of ideas (theories) that to date have not been disproved. Nothing has ever been proven!
[/quote]
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
You say that we have to disprove it for it not to be so…
That we cannot prove something that has not yet been disproved therefore it “must be”, until otherwise disproved as being non-existent. ??? Aye???
What is a vacuum? Nothing, but we know its there because of the something around it. We have reached the point where we can say that as far as we are able we “Know” nothing is within that space. There maybe something there but we cant as yet detect it.
One day we may be advanced enough to be able to detect some as yet unknown “Thing”. But now, we cant.
Doesnt mean it’s not there, we just dont know its there. Or, there is actually nothing there…we have hit the end of the line. that is the bottom marker point of existence as we know it.
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Time is a unit that man created. [/quote]
And what does that “unit” measure?
[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine.
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
[/quote]
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
[/quote]
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine.
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?[/quote]
I think you’re missing orion’s point. If god is outside our experience, then how would anyone ever know about him? It seems more likely to me, that god is something people made up a long long time ago to explain the world around them.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
[/quote]
I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine.
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?
I think you’re missing orion’s point. If god is outside our experience, then how would anyone ever know about him? It seems more likely to me, that god is something people made up a long long time ago to explain the world around them. [/quote]
YES…
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book. [/quote]
My point exactly…thanks mbm
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
[/quote]
It doesn’t drive me “Nuts” at all…as i said earlier, i am intrigued by the devotion people put into it.
Science proves for and against itself constantly.
One day something is harmless to you, 20 years later it is found to be cancer causing. This is the constant strive to understand and accept change.
If we didn’t, and just accepted that because 20 years ago they said it was ok, then, it must still be ok.
“But why is everyone dying when they use it? Oh well, it must just have to be. Lets just move on.”
Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?
Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine.
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?
I think you’re missing orion’s point. If god is outside our experience, then how would anyone ever know about him? [/quote]
I understand Orion’s point exactly. His notion is simply incorrect. God can be “other” and yet among us at the same time.