Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's as if a friend told me, for example, that there's a spoon on my bed, you can't see it, but it's there, and friend number 2 comes along and tells me dude, there is no spoon on your bed because we dont' see it there, as a matter of fact, it does not exist on your bed.

I'm gonna go with friend number two.

and imo, one of the reason is, is that, to me, in generally every case, generally speaking, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

How would you differentiate, if you disagreed? Please explain.

oh man, my bad.

i should'a threw this topic out into the religion forum.

oh well. the mods'll take care of it.

If it effects the material universe but still isn't visible then it still exists.

Take black holes for instance.

thats sort of what I was thinking, there are a number of things that aren't "visible" to humans, yet we can measure in many ways, or we can see the direct effects of.

I suppose it all depends on if you think an item that is, by definition, undetectable in any way and has no impact otherwise on the universe actually exists in the first place. As in, is the ability to impact the physical universe a prerequisite for something to be considered existent?

Originally posted by inimalist
thats sort of what I was thinking, there are a number of things that aren't "visible" to humans, yet we can measure in many ways, or we can see the direct effects of.

I suppose it all depends on if you think an item that is, by definition, undetectable in any way and has no impact otherwise on the universe actually exists in the first place. As in, is the ability to impact the physical universe a prerequisite for something to be considered existent?
Which opens interesting existential questions when you consider that non-existent things have effected (albeit indirectly) the material universe.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If it effects the material universe but still isn't visible then it still exists.

Take black holes for instance.
I would assume that by "invisible", he did not mean in reference to sight alone, but rather, "undetectable". Obviously, it is a simple matter to differentiate the two if you can smell, hear, feel etc., or even "see" it through indirect inferences.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would assume that by "invisible", he did not mean in reference to sight alone, but rather, "undetectable". Obviously, it is a simple matter to differentiate the two if you can smell, hear, feel etc., or even "see" it through indirect inferences.
So invisible and intangible?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So invisible and intangible?

Or just a very strict sort of intangible. Nothing it does effects the world. Nothing the world does effects it.

Isn't this semantics? Obviously, the difference is: the Undetectable exists on some level (we just can't "see" it), while the Nonexistent doesn't exist at all (hence, there's nothing to "see".

If we want to move this into a more realistic venue, then how did we know the Undetectable entity exists in the first place? At some point, on some level, it had to register in human awareness. Otherwise, how would we know to even ask about it? Heck, at the very least, even "God" showed up in writing to get the ball rolling.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's as if a friend told me, for example, that there's a spoon on my bed, you can't see it, but it's there, and friend number 2 comes along and tells me dude, there is no spoon on your bed because we dont' see it there, as a matter of fact, it does not exist on your bed.
semantics