Any references to the bible, koran, or other articles of faith are not qualifying evidence are and should be ignored due to circular logic.
-
There isn't anything spiritual andthere is no reason to assume they exist.Voted for by Hardhittn63.
-
evidence?first you ask for evidence, then for a reason to believe actual evidence?Voted for by loveyourfate.
Anyway, how can one give defenitive proof, evidence to something that is called "belief." You can't "believe" if it is known as a fact, then that would be knowledge. -
mo tive?
why do you ask? this is an amusing tactic, transluscent in it's condensation. but amusing....
if you need evidence, forget you even heard of it.
you don't really care, so save your energy for the scientific forum you dwell within.
i know what i know, and these have become my truths. i do not care if you chortle at this. you are not me, and i cherish this fact. you should take into account that this difference does not make me an idiot. i would not raise that term against you, and i live on the other end of your philosophical spectrum....
you are calling out the unseen. you are asking for people to sing shapes out from the whiteness..... i am what i am, i exist with all my beliefs and truths in their place, and am not a myth or a juxtoposition of logic....
you shouldn't be asking a question if you refuse the existence of an answer.... be respectful. intelligence is more than text and corporal means, it is built and nurtured through respect.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
TeChNoWC
August 13
August 14
Edit | Reply
August 13
Inconclusive
There is no more evidence against belief in spirituality than there is for it.August 14
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
August 14
Point being that we can use our own arguments to falsify anything and come to our own conclusions. I cannot prove spirituality outright to you, particularly as it has a variety of different definitions, nor can you prove the legitimacy of science to me, in my view. It simply holds none in such axiomatical terms, as we seek to explain or devaluate the existence of something so broad and involved in the very roots of our civilization that you cannot simply use your own understanding of proofs to dissuage what is truth to others; they too may have their own methodologies of how they came to such conclusions.
And despite all this, whether we task the spiritual as spiritual indeed or merely mental, another argument therein is the benefit of the spiritual mental, and therefore it no longer becomes merely about 'proof'.
Molzahn
August 14
When I think of this, I think of a contrast of definitions. How we conceptually define something depends on how many other ideas we anchor and entangle with it. Literary allusions are a perfect example of how everything has a defaulted contextual value. When I say "ghost" one may think of halloween and a number of associated fallacious constructs; or perhaps a personable experience you had in the middle of the night in a creepily darkened room. For this very reason the mind will modulate any reference to these idea types as generally valid or invalid, based on previous experiences. Without words, without a reflexive reaction, one may consider the experiences in purer forms.
Their is no such thing as a "spiritual thing", it is a label telling our minds how to handle and interpret the experience. I think with enough exposure to an opposing label-validation though, you can be swindled and shifted of position. No personal conclusion is conclusive.
August 14
Molzahn
August 15
August 17
Edit: so then what is the use to assuming there is any extra special forces? Without anything truly objective to work off its useless.
Molzahn
August 21
August 21
Edit | Reply
August 14
Molzahn
August 15
Edit | Reply
not exactly...
We can define something and apply reason, but the definition will depend on who is in the conversation, and the reasoning will depend on the individual intellectual preferences.We can't define any "thing" absolutely.
August 14
Edit | Reply
August 14
Molzahn
August 15
August 15
Molzahn
August 16
Just like you couldn't prove to a deaf man that there is such a thing as sound, he hasn't experienced it, so he has no accurate way of relating to it.
August 16
Molzahn
August 16
August 17
Molzahn
August 18
But no, I don't feel that religious people are any more enlightened than the rest of us.
August 18
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
August 14
No, that's only based on the assumption that what we consider spiritual is merely only the unexplainable - but I simply don't work on that definition nor posit that assumption, as I do actually believe in a real spiritual world, defined not by the label but by its sheer existence, different to the material world and explainable via its own laws and nature. So the spiritual is no longer a mere label for the unknown but rather an actual belief system about an alternate, co-existing reality. They are two different things and it is your naturalistic atheism that determines that only the mind is reality. True as that may seem, and I posit this, this is not my BELIEF of the actual reality, which is actual, and has actual spiritual components that are explainable but is on a higher plane than our current one.
Molzahn
August 15
When I said "spiritual thing" you could replace that with "scientific thing" or "interesting thing" or any dialectic reference. A label is a label is a label.
The experience in its self transcends the label, but whenever you think back to an experience, you are not reliving the experience, you are creating a new one.
August 15
Molzahn
August 16
August 16
Molzahn
August 16
August 17
Edit | Reply
mudgod
August 14
August 15
mudgod
August 15
August 15
Molzahn
August 18
August 18
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
August 21
So if science creates the atom bomb, what Molzahn is saying is that spirituality aims to find a purpose in NOT using that bomb to blow up millions of people; doing so would jeopardise your spirit, and the well-being of others.
I don't see how the atom bomb is an example in favour of 'science alone'.
August 21
Edit | Reply
What would you use to predict the future; a reliable time machine, or guesses?
TeChNoWC
October 20
Edit | Reply
And to add to that, science may be able to do really cool quirky things like that, but it can't grant salvation, nor can it impart wisdom, nor can it create virtue, or change a man's heart, or give him the most important, pure, and richest things in life; it is only a tool of the physical. I believe there is more to life than the physical.
TeChNoWC
October 20
Edit | Reply
When I said "spiritual thing" you could replace that with "scientific thing" or "interesting thing" or any dialectic reference. A label is a label is a label.
The experience in its self transcends the label, but whenever you think back to an experience, you are not reliving the experience, you are creating a new one."
Alright, I see what you mean - so the poster's question becomes useless. Moreover it would be better to individually examine claims of incidence coined as 'supernatural' and argue to the nature of these claims' existence. Ie, I saw a mental 'ghost', had an experience of a whispy entity or a mental occurence where I talked to my grandma, or I actually did see the Spirit of God descend in my living room (and this was the actual).
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free