It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why there is no proof for spiritual matters

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I believe there can never be proof of GOD, our souls, or any spiritual matter. Here's one reason why:

Often times we are careful to keep science and religion separate. It seems as though any given event can fit into only one of the categories. Once science finds an explanation for something, that something moves from the catogory of spiritual, into the category of science.

Example: For some, the Aurora Borealis was an omen or communication from God. It was divine and spiritual in nature. Science discovered that it is caused by energy from the sun reacting with the upper atmosphere of the Earth, and poof the Borealis is no longer spiritual.

So here is my question:

Is it necessary that spirituality be confined to things that are mysterious and lack explanation?

If so, can there ever be proof of God (or anything spiritual) or wouldn't the proof itself strip the event of spirituality, and therefore render itself useless?

I am not sure that made sense - I'll try it again.

Would real proof of any spiritual event actually prove the event to be non-spiritual if we confine spirituallity to things that lack explanation?




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Well, I think it's important to separate 'spirituality' and 'supernatural'.

Problem is trying to find a wrkable definition for spirituality. Just what is it?

Sometimes I feel what I could call spiritual, a feeling of awe, strong connections to people and nature. But it's really just a subjective feeling.

Is that all spirituality is? An emotion?

If you then add supernatural to spirituality, then it is just supernatural. That is beyond nature, beyond science, beyond rational explanation. The realm of woo.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   


Why there is no proof for spiritual matters?


perception. how does one see or hear something that lies outside the scope of their expectations?

i think people do not see the proof because of that which is observing reality.

If what is looking is not acknowledging, recognizing, or accepting aspects of their reality because of prejudices (judgment already assigned to somthing) then perhaps the proof they seek is the same thing they ignore because of how it makes them feel.

of course, if one were to know why they feel what they feel ....

then the proof might be recognizable and acknowledgable.

just some thoughts.

thanks for sharing,
john



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, I think it's important to separate 'spirituality' and 'supernatural'.

Problem is trying to find a wrkable definition for spirituality. Just what is it?

Sometimes I feel what I could call spiritual, a feeling of awe, strong connections to people and nature. But it's really just a subjective feeling.

Is that all spirituality is? An emotion?

If you then add supernatural to spirituality, then it is just supernatural. That is beyond nature, beyond science, beyond rational explanation. The realm of woo.


Yeah, I agree with melatonin. Just what the hell is spirituality anyways? Without having some solid definition of this word your entire post becomes meaningless.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Problem is trying to find a wrkable definition for spirituality. Just what is it?

Is that all spirituality is? An emotion?

edited by wellwhatnow


That’s a good point. So what is spirituality? Just off hand I would describe it as basically one’s ideas, views, or ways of dealing with things of a devotional, sacred, or religious matter. It very well could be an emotion.

What does it mean to you? Even if you aren’t a spiritual (or religious) person I am sure that you could still offer some input on the definition of the word.

Then I ask, must an issue be mysterious in order to be spiritual? Is it necessary that once an issue has a scientific explanation that it can no longer be spiritual?

edit to fix quote

[edit on 3/9/07 by wellwhatnow]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Well iI posted in a thread that a scientist provided evidence of at least one thing that we consider supernatural: Consciousness being independent of the brain.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
To me personally spirituality is a term for the collective sensation or emotions I experience when I ponder on questions that I either do not yet have answers for or maybe never will have logical answers for.

Questions such as, what is the meaning of life? What is my conciousness? Was there ever a beginning or has the universe always been? What if there was nothing? Or when I simply try to comprehend the sheer size of the universe. When I'm having such moments, that's what I'd define as being spiritual.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Well, anything that is spiritual is not tangible. It can't be touched, smelled, seen, measured, weighed. Since we do live in a physical world and we demand physical proof of things, spiritual things will never be proven.

Now,I suppose that maybe in the distant future science will evolve enough to measure every type of energy there is,but that is not likely to happen within the next couple of centuries. I don't think.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
I believe there can never be proof of GOD, our souls, or any spiritual matter.


Do you mean proof for ourselves...from God?
Or proof that we might somehow try to use to show someone else proof of God?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Either really, in a philosophical sense... but mostly I was addressing the question in light of those that say that they will believe in God as soon as proof for God's existance is supplied.

If the same person who insists on proof also holds the opinion that only unexplained things can be spiritual, then satisfactory proof can never be provided. The proof itself would turn the spiritual event into a non-spiritual event. It seems like a bit of dilema.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I've often wondered why science is lauded as being the method by which we should investigate the religious or spiritual. To me it's somewhat like a person claiming that pearls do not exist in a plot of land because his geiger counter does not detect any. How will using a device that detects radioactivity help us find a non-radioactive object? Likewise, how can using a method that eschews non-physicalist methodologies come up with an answer to our various spiritual and religious questions?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Either really, in a philosophical sense... but mostly I was addressing the question in light of those that say that they will believe in God as soon as proof for God's existance is supplied.

If the same person who insists on proof also holds the opinion that only unexplained things can be spiritual, then satisfactory proof can never be provided. The proof itself would turn the spiritual event into a non-spiritual event. It seems like a bit of dilema.


It's not really a dilemma, it just goes to show that the concept of spirituality is redundant and really simply nonsensical. I don't need a made up thing called spirituality in my life as an Agnostic Athiest.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
I don't need a made up thing called spirituality in my life as an Agnostic Athiest.


Ummm, if you're an athiest then how the hell are you Agnostic? Ummm, an agnostic is someeone who neither believes nor disbelieves that there is a God, they admit they don't know. An athiest doesn't believe in a God, period.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 9-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Demographic research services[1] normally list agnostics alongside categories such as atheist and non-religious, although this is misleading, since religious people can be agnostic (indicating a lack of absolute certainty, therefore treating their religion as a faith).

Athiest and Agnostic are not the same.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I thought that "agnostic atheist" was meant to signify that the person is agnostic, and doesn't believe in a higher power (yet remaining agnostic). It's related to "soft" atheism I think?

The "agnostic theist" is agnostic, but believes there is a higher power, just doesn't have much belief for what it is.

There was a post about these terms and I guess that's where the idea came from.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
I don't need a made up thing called spirituality in my life as an Agnostic Athiest.


Ummm, if you're an athiest then how the hell are you Agnostic? Ummm, an agnostic is someeone who neither believes nor disbelieves that there is a God, they admit they don't know. An athiest doesn't believe in a God, period.


You are misinformed!

An Atheist is simply the opposite of Theist, Anti-Theist. I'm a Atheist, i.e. someone without religion. I'm an Atheist because I'm without religion and without belief in any spesific supernatural entity. I'm also Agnostic because I believe the existence of God or other supernatural entites are unknowable and therefore completely irrelevant to my existence.

I am therefore an Agnostic Atheist, I can honestly say that I hold the only logical position. Now, someone has pointed out to me that logical does not necessarily mean better, however I'm not quite convinced of that yet.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toromos
Likewise, how can using a method that eschews non-physicalist methodologies come up with an answer to our various spiritual and religious questions?


I think you have made an important point there. However, the scientific method is held as the standard for some reason - so my question was asked in light of it.


Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
I don't need a made up thing called spirituality in my life as an Agnostic Athiest.


That’s fine with me and I would not ask you to change it. You may feel anyway you wish and label it anyway you wish. I sometimes think of myself as a religious atheist, but that's a long story. My question was somewhat philosophical and not meant to change anyone.

Let us imagine for a moment that deities are not unknowable, they are just unknown. Let’s imagine that a deity does suddenly become known. Would this removal of mystery make the deity less of a deity?

Obviously, for some, the unknowable quality of deities makes the deities irrelevant and would tend to push one away from spirituality. I wonder if that same unknowable quality has the opposite effect for others, drawing the person to spirituality.

edited because I just can't seem to ever do it right the first time

[edit on 3/9/07 by wellwhatnow]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow

So here is my question:

Is it necessary that spirituality be confined to things that are mysterious and lack explanation?



As far as regarding God(Jesus Christ) He desires us to know Him every moment of our existance. We are not to look for Him in just the mysterious unexplained things of life.

If someone has a cancerous tumor, get closer to God cause He's watching and is present. If we are driving to the grocery store for food, that is also to be lived in the presence of God cause He's also watching us do that. NOTHING is done or takes place out of God's sight.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
... scientist provided evidence of at least one thing that we consider supernatural: Consciousness being independent of the brain...


That's really cool stuff Bandit, I just now got around to reading it.

I had an NDE once, but it was totally mundane and I was so disappointed. What's the use in nearly dying if you can't at least have some awesome NDE?

Good find though Bandit, thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join