Okay, so a human has a hearing range between 20-20k Hz. A dog has a hearing range between 40-60k Hz. Obviously dogs can hear pitches we cannot. Dogs cannot distinguish between red, orange, yellow or green. Humans can differentiate between all of those colors. Dogs can see various shades of blue that we cannot and can differentiate between closely related shades of gray that are not distinguishable to people. Is it possible, I'm going out on a limb here, that maybe our senses and intellect are not highly evolved enough to detect the presence of a God/Gods? I'm Agnostic, so I'm keeping my mind open...
2007-12-04 01:37:41 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That would be correct. To the finite/the material, reality is subjective to these definitions. To the Universal Father, the Spirit God, there is no flesh, and nothing for mortal eyes to see. Your analogy certainly allows us to recognize that realities are perceived in various amounts in higher and lower spiritual creatures and we may not possess any means to tangibly validate the Infinite and Absolute . This being said, shows us that it does not make reality outside of perception an impossibility. Even with all our "Instruments" how would one know what to look for to determine the existence of the Spirit? How do we know it is something that is allowed to be detected? Wouldn't such revelations revoke freewill and personal realization?
2007-12-04 01:47:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Let us imagine that there was a God, but one who is undetectable to our senses, if the god were totally undetectable it would be because the god's interaction with the universe were totally undetectable. If that is the case, then the existence of a god is irrelevant isn't it. If there is a god who does not or cannot interact with the universe in a way meaningful to us, then such a being would not matter. It would be the same as if there were no god and then the question of god becomes irrelevant, unless you spend a lot of time on it, then you are consuming time better spent doing other things.
2007-12-04 02:19:42 · answer #2 · answered by OPM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You forget that it's the instruments that we use to measure these 'differences' that give us so much more 'range' than other animals.
By this I mean that telescopes, microscopes, computers, spectromiters, microphones, etc, etc, etc are all just extensions of our senses.
Dogs may be able to detect different shades of grey that we can not see with the unaided eye, but with the right equipment, we can not only detect the differences, we can also determine by how much they differ in relation to each other.
Maybe we aren't intellegent enough to detect the presence of Gods, but out of any creature on earth. I'm laying my money on us as the only one capable of coming up with an answer.
2007-12-04 01:49:30 · answer #3 · answered by Sly Phi AM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An assertion without evidence is merely that. something of your pseudo philosophy is unsuitable. Quantum mechanics has shown us the the observer determines what's actual. A quantum gadget is in all that's allowable states on an identical time till that's noted by using an interloper. look at unfavourable, previous Schordinger's cat - concurrently alive and ineffective till you open the container that's in an look at it. And if I persist with tortuous logical - Btw, that's frequently a bad sign whilst the argument is twisted with words utilized in unfamiliar techniques because of the fact it indicators the guy advancing the argument relatively hasn't theory issues out - no you are able to tell "actuality" from "phantasm" becasuse all of us ( properly a a number of besides) have a recommendations that could have its very own biases and hence shade what we preceive.
2016-10-19 03:03:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is true...but could it also be true that there is no truly knowable objective reality at all? In my opinion yes, but most sane people disagree...who do you want to believe...
(I would like to know, however, what function of the senses or mind would allow for noticing God, in that, unless God is akin to a ghost, there is pretty much no reason to assume that any other living thing on the planet detects Him any more than we do...).
2007-12-04 01:44:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Our tools can hear much better than dogs. We can detect and image a wide swath of the electromagnetic spectrum, detect and reproduce sounds lower than even elephants hear and softer than a the beat of a fly's wing.
Sorry, but dogs don't have anything on us in the god detecting department. If there was a god, we'd have the best chance of detecting it.
So far, no gods.
2007-12-04 01:42:19 · answer #6 · answered by nondescript 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's the other way around. Man has fallen into the material realm so that what was once a strong spiritual sense has now become a sensual sense, and his perception of God is sadly diminished to a little flicker of conscience.
2007-12-04 01:54:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We have arrived at proofs that show that God must exist for the universe to make sense. You are actually right in saying that, on our own, our senses and intellect cannot know God. We need God's help for that.
2007-12-04 01:52:21 · answer #8 · answered by ptbc 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
But would God not then be observable by the devices used to test sensory stimuli?
Seriously, if he was just a different range of light waves, we'd be able to "see" him/her/it with the devices we use to detect those waves.
I suppose it's all in how you define "god."
2007-12-04 01:44:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We can,t find God anywhere because of the "idea" of being separate from God! God "IS" All In All, so what is this subjective reality anyway???
2007-12-04 01:43:09 · answer #10 · answered by Premaholic 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋