What Major Intellectual Issue Most Keeps You From Accepting The Christian Narrative?

[Huggy Bear]

It seems like you're trying to avoid giving an answer...

Strange how Jenny knew exactly what I was talking about but somehow you're discombobulated.

Do you believe other dimensions (dimensions other than 1st 2nd and 3rd) exist? However you want to define a dimension is fine with me.

Jenny assumed what you were talking about.

For me, I know that theists like you rely on conflation and equivocation, so when asked if I believe in something, first thing I do is try to specify exactly what I am being asked that I believe in. After all, it's not like you have still actually told me what exactly you are referring to when asking about higher dimensions.

But if you are asking if I believe in other dimensions that physicists theorise exist, I have to say that I neither believe or disbelieve. I accept that they could exist but also am open to the possibility that the need for them might disappear if the physicists concerned come up with a different model. I also accept that I am not a physicist and am largely ignorant on the matter. But if the field collectively decides that these dimensions exist then I will accept that.

But if so, unlike theists I won't use it as an excuse to justify any crackpot theory not supported by evidence. Nor will I associate these dimensions with properties not supported by the science.

You do realize that other dimensions are theorized to exist basically because of "properties not supported by the science", right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_d%27Espagnat
The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.- Bernard d'Espagnat

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...ton-prize/

Unlike classical physics, d’Espagnat explained, quantum mechanics cannot describe the world as it really is, it can merely make predictions for the outcomes of our observations. If we want to believe, as Einstein did, that there is a reality independent of our observations, then this reality can either be knowable, unknowable or veiled. D’Espagnat subscribes to the third view. Through science, he says, we can glimpse some basic structures of the reality beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery.

“There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a ‘veiled reality’ that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments.”

“Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God – or ‘Substance’ – of Spinoza,” d’Espagnat writes. Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God, which he equated with nature itself, but he always held this “God” to be entirely knowable. D’Espagnat’s veiled God, on the other hand, is partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable. And for precisely this reason, it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments.