[BMCDA]

What I think you're suggesting here, when you think about it, is that everything is knowable, even given our constraints as four-dimensional beings. The corollary to that would be that if something isn't knowable, then it doesn't exist.

No, that's not what I meant. I only said that if the existence of something is per definition not knowable then it is tantamount to not existing at all. It could very well exist but there is no way we could provide evidence in favor of its existence. If we assume that there is no way we can leave our space-time then under this premise we cannot detect whether there is something "out" there or not. We have to wait until this something from outside our space-time influences in some way our reality. Only then we are at least in principle able to know of its existance (if we didn't find a satisfactory naturalistic answer). I don't claim that in this case we understand this... well whatsoever, I only mean with knowable that we at least know of its existence.

Take as an example the inhabitants of a two dimensional flat-world. If we didn't interfere with their world (e.g. poke our fingers through their plane) there is no way for them to know of our existence and whether we exist or not would have the same consequences for their world. Now if we interfered in their world they could at least infer the existence of someting outside their particular space-time (if you poke your finger through their plane they'd see slices of it in their world) even if they cannot imagine higher dimensional objects.

Well, I think this is as agnostic as it can get.

Of course theologians and philosophers can theorize as much as they want about this extra space-time reality but there is no way how to test their inferences on this matter. One can only determine if one "hypothesis" (in lack of a better word) is more appealing to oneself than an other. That's how I see it but of course you are entitled to your own oppinion concerning this issue ;-)

[Sabertooth]

Well, I think this is as agnostic as it can get.

Yep, pretty much.

Of course theologians and philosophers can theorize as much as they want about this extra space-time reality but there is no way how to test their inferences on this matter. One can only determine if one "hypothesis" (in lack of a better word) is more appealing to oneself than an other. That's how I see it but of course you are entitled to your own opinion concerning this issue ;-)

I totally agree.

Here's my deal, at the risk of redundancy...

I think that scientists and the science minded are often incautious with certain terms, like nature, random, nothing, reality, etc., that are theologically loaded. Sometimes inadvertently, and sometimes deliberately so. This only adds, IMO, to the uneccessary hostility between science and other systems of knowledge. It lends credence to the claim of some that certain aspects of science have become like religious dogma, more tenets of faith than anything. To what end?

Mutual incompatibility is not preordained.

Acknowledging "we don't know," or even "working assumptions" costs real science not a cent, and in fact the inherent and readily apparent intellectual honesty of such on approach only adds to its credibility.