Featured The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[AgnosticBoy]

To correct the premise, it would be essential to define "universe" clearly. For example - is it:

1. The Observable Universe: Refers to the part of the universe that we can observe and measure, limited by the speed of light and the age of the universe?

True, ...the definition of Universe, or how we deal with it, is further limited by philosophy and practice in science. And I think these are imposed constraints and not necessary ones because I believe some supernatural things can be observed which should make it part of the observable Universe. But again the issue is that science just ignores it.

Either way, I agree with your solution of distinguishing between observable Universe and the totality of existence.

No. I would not accept that as evidence for nonphysical reality. Why would I? I have already argued re the reports that physical interaction happens re OBEs so proving they are real naturally means they are also physical. At this point I do not see it necessary to "explain" the non existence of a nonphysical since both mean the same thing. So if you feel there is a strong case for the existence of a non "thing", then feel free to make a case.

Generally, its for the same reason that you can't see a ghost. We can't detect them although there are exceptions.

If you say they are physical, then you are left with the challenge explaining why we can't detect them or anything on the other side.

 

[William]

Generally, its for the same reason that you can't see a ghost. We can't detect them although there are exceptions.

If you say they are physical, then you are left with the challenge explaining why we can't detect them or anything on the other side.

There are things we do know exist within the OU but we do not see them...what we do is measure them...

Neutrinos could be understood as "ghost" particles but they are not supernatural...
When it comes to things associated with "the other side" (such as tripping or OBEs et al) something occurs which allows us to see and interact with entities and the assumption is that these exist "elsewhere" (the other side) rather than alongside us.

What causes this?

I think it is plausible that it is the form consciousness takes on which determines the amount of information the consciousness using the form is able to perceive.

Why not think of it this way. Everything that exists does so as structures (universes if you will) superimposed on one another - stacked as it were.

In this sense there is no real "other side" but simply a change in perception enabling consciousness to physically experience other realities but also giving the impression that these "other" realities are separate from the dominant reality we ordinarily experience.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

When it comes to things associated with "the other side" (such as tripping or OBEs et al) something occurs which allows us to see and interact with entities and the assumption is that these exist "elsewhere" (the other side) rather than alongside us

Agreed. I think it exist alongside like as part of different dimensions.

I think it is plausible that it is the form consciousness takes on which determines the amount of information the consciousness using the form is able to perceive.

In this sense there is no real "other side" but simply a change in perception enabling consciousness to physically experience other realities but also giving the impression that these "other" realities are separate from the dominant reality we ordinarily experience.

That might explain why psychics and animals are said to be able to perceive more than the average person. In a sense, they are more sensitive - more conscious.

 

[William]

So where to from here AB?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So where to from here AB?

Build on where we agree and reevaluate our differences.

For instance we both agree that OBEs can occur. In my view, that even makes our differences on physical vs nonphysical seem small in comparison since the implications of OBEs is huge (like consciousness existing beyond body). You'd have a lot of materialists on you because your materialists position is not mainstream.

Later today, I'll start another thread that focused on the validity of OBEs or maybe just the nonphysical, in general.

 

[William]

So where to from here AB?

Build on where we agree and reevaluate our differences.

For instance we both agree that OBEs can occur. In my view, that even makes our differences on physical vs nonphysical seem small in comparison since the implications of OBEs is huge (like consciousness existing beyond body). You'd have a lot of materialists on you because your materialists position is not mainstream.

Later today, I'll start another thread that focused on the validity of OBEs or maybe just the nonphysical, in general.

AB, I think an important distinction in our discussion is that my argument isn’t about internal vs. external consciousness—I'm open to either possibility. Instead, I’m questioning the need to categorize OBEs as 'nonphysical' in the first place.


We both acknowledge that OBEs occur. I even accept them based on personal experience, including physical interactions. But just because we don’t fully understand the mechanics behind them doesn’t mean we should assume they involve something 'nonphysical' in the metaphysical sense.


There’s a common assumption that if we can’t directly measure or observe something using current scientific methods, it must belong to a 'nonphysical' domain. But that’s not necessarily the case. History has repeatedly shown that things once thought to be beyond material explanation—like electromagnetism or quantum mechanics—were later understood within an expanded model of physical reality. Consciousness, including OBEs, might be another example of something we just don’t yet fully grasp within the material framework.


So my question is this:
What specifically requires OBEs to be classified as 'nonphysical'? Why must the unknown be placed in that category rather than considered an undiscovered aspect of material reality?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

@William

Started a thread here....

Thread 'Does anything non-physical exists? Can scientists even deal with the non-physical?'

Mar 16, 2025

The non-physical is a topic that peaks my interest because it involves so many different phenomenon and it has huge implications. It mostly involves a lot of phenomenon that we find in religion, like spiritual beings, ghosts, spiritual/afterlife places, but it also involves more down-to-earth stuff like consciousness, OBEs, NDEs, etc.

One common example that comes up a lot is subjective experience. I would imagine that some reasons for seeing subjective experience as non-physical is because it lacks some of the physical characteristics that we usually use to call something physical...

• AgnosticBoy
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Religion & Philosophy

I can use your questions to break the ice!