proofs or disproofs

[3bob]

Many speak of proofs or disproofs verified by various means that come down to the use of the tools of the mind, thus in many cases the mind of intellect is often made the "God" of authority.

 

but one may also find that all proofs or disproofs of mind that may be relatively valid somewhere in mind can not stand before the proof of Spirit, and thankfully no one can prove or disprove such with any amount of science, data or thoughts related to or in using those various tools of the mind.

 

Mind is the tool, not really the master ime.

 

Om

Edited December 30, 2010 by 3bob

[Sloppy Zhang]

As a note: when I talk about "proving" something, I mean proving it on the physical plane, in the most popularly shared plane of physical existence. Meaning if you were going to stand out in Times Square and perform some feet, most everyone there would acknowledge it. You could argue that reality is entirely subjective, and I would agree with you, but that there is a reality that most of us share. Some of us may see spirits while others do not, but I'm sure we all see a speeding bus coming our way, and get out of the way. Paranoid schizophrenic people certainly have their own subjective reality, and sometimes act in extreme measures due to its reality, but how much of that reality is shared with those around them? So for ease of conversation, let's stick with "popularly shared physical reality" on this one.

 

Of course you can't really prove the existence of spirit. If someone says, "well such and such happens on the spiritual plane of existence", you can't really prove that.

 

But you can prove things on the physical level. If you say, "the powers of the spirit can cure cancer", "the powers of spirit allow me to move mountains", "the powers of spirit allow me to fly", "the powers of spirit allow me to defeat dozens of enemies at once", these things are physically demonstrable and physically verifiable.

 

Now if you are speaking metaphor, or you are talking about the things the power of spirit allows you to do in the realm of spirit, well we can't really prove that down here, can we? Unless two people travel spiritually to the same spiritual place, observe something spiritual, return, and share the same account, and we check that there was no way that they could have physically communicated or came up with a story beforehand, well then we might be getting somewhere.

 

So yeah, spirit is spirit. Don't know of any real ways of arguing against that.

 

But physical is physical. If someone has something that can be "proven" or "disproved" on the physical level, well then they should do it. Unless the powers of spirit constrain them, but we have no way of verifying that, now do we?

[strawdog65]

Ok ... I'm here to witness the proof of spirit.

 

Or did I get that wrong and it's supposed to be

the spirit's proof?

 

Belief in anything immaterial can never be proved.

 

But I guess that the point, there is safety in taking the

stance that you have to believe for it be proven to you.

 

Let's prove something that is unprovable by being obstinate

and using unrelenting insistence to support it's existence.

 

I'm so convinced!

[3bob]

From strawdog65,

Ok ... I'm here to witness the proof of spirit.

 

Or did I get that wrong and it's supposed to be

the spirit's proof?

 

Belief in anything immaterial can never be proved.

 

But I guess that the point, there is safety in taking the

stance that you have to believe for it be proven to you.

 

Let's prove something that is unprovable by being obstinate

and using unrelenting insistence to support it's existence.

 

I'm so convinced!

 

From Bob,

Sorry, but thankfully there is a catch - for only Spirit can prove Spirit; thus even the rather unexplainable examples given by sloppyZ could be explained away or dismissed by an obstinate intellect that maintains its position as "God" at all costs. (for being just another average skeptic is not a powerful enough stance)

 

Om

Edited December 29, 2010 by 3bob

[Sloppy Zhang]

Sorry, but thankfully there is a catch - for only Spirit can prove Spirit; thus even the rather unexplainable examples given by sloppyZ could be explained away or dismissed by an obstinate intellect that maintains its position as "God" at all costs. (for being just another average skeptic is not a powerful enough stance)

Om

 

But even that position is not a rational one, and irrational people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway.

 

The problem is that there is not enough significant proof out there for many people. You got a lot of people who are making admirable efforts in researching various areas of the "unexplainable", but nothing is really getting picked up because nobody really takes it seriously.

 

And it's not like the people who "work with spirit" are doing much to help their case. With all the "prove it to yourself" or "spirit can't be proven" or "disbelieving will sabotage yourself", there's a vicious cycle of rhetoric which prevents people, even within spiritual communities, from going after physical proof.

[3bob]

But even that position is not a rational one, and irrational people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway.

 

The problem is that there is not enough significant proof out there for many people. You got a lot of people who are making admirable efforts in researching various areas of the "unexplainable", but nothing is really getting picked up because nobody really takes it seriously.

 

And it's not like the people who "work with spirit" are doing much to help their case. With all the "prove it to yourself" or "spirit can't be proven" or "disbelieving will sabotage yourself", there's a vicious cycle of rhetoric which prevents people, even within spiritual communities, from going after physical proof.

 

Hello SloppyZ,

"rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Btw, I have no problemo's with various medical or electronic type tools giving some proofs beyond what has been accepted in the past... but such will still often be dismissed or explained away for such in many cases is the nature of the so-called rational mind.

 

Om

 

P.S. Btw, don't forget all of the "rational" minds that have helped give mankind war, murder and mayhem for who really knows for how many thousands of years? (or over and over)

Edited December 30, 2010 by 3bob

[Sloppy Zhang]

Hello SloppyZ,

"rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Btw, I have no problemo's with various medical or electronic type tools giving some proofs beyond what has been accepted in the past... but such will still often be dismissed or explained away for such in many cases is the nature of the so-called rational mind.

 

Haha.

 

Well look, a lot of cases for people blatantly ignoring any new data that did not form with their belief, their agenda, or what have you. Not a bad case, and it's quite believable.

 

But that could go any way, whether you are arguing for the existence of a spirit, the existence of dinosaurs, the existence of aliens, etc etc.

 

P.S. Btw, don't forget all of the "rational" minds that have helped give mankind war, murder and mayhem for who really knows for how many thousands of years? (or over and over)

 

Who's to say they WEREN'T being rational? Maybe the rest of the world, the rest of the population, didn't fit into the calculation, but it had to make sense to somebody. At least, if you believe the first rule of economics (as my professor taught it), and that is that people are rational. They just might not be operating on the same scale of rationality as you

[Marblehead]

Yeah, nice topic. Regretfully I have nothing new to say that I have not already said in other threads of this forum.

 

I am an animal of provability. I have proven that my chair exists therefore I need not think about the existence of my chair when I am about to sit in (on) it.

 

I have still been unable to prove any of the spiritual aspects of the universe, nor has anyone else, so IMO this is just something that we decide to either believe in or not, regardless of provability.

[3bob]

Yeah, nice topic. Regretfully I have nothing new to say that I have not already said in other threads of this forum.

 

I am an animal of provability. I have proven that my chair exists therefore I need not think about the existence of my chair when I am about to sit in (on) it.

 

I have still been unable to prove any of the spiritual aspects of the universe, nor has anyone else, so IMO this is just something that we decide to either believe in or not, regardless of provability.

 

Hi MH,

 

Some basics I'm sure you and others are very well aware of:

 

No problemo with relative proofs that are used in the task of defining related things. Then again various existences are easily dissolved by the passage of time and also more or less instaneously... thus to me the meaning of the term "existence" is highly conditional upon definitions that can use many different frameworks or parameters. Take a chair for example, it only exists as such to something near its same density or collection of molecules, while and for instance electrons are not impacted by a chairs existence since they pass right through it and around in it, thus does the chair exist (on the same level as electrons) as far as the electrons are concerned? Further, and in the past the effects of electrons were not known until finer ideas and accompanying tools were created that could detect them since the human eye is blind to same and could not know or see of their existence. Lastly, only another electron or something close to it could sit on an electron without falling on the floor, ouch.

 

Om

[Marblehead]

Well, as I am not supposed to be all that wrapped up in the passage of time but rather live in the now, the chair exists now so that I might utilize it. Hehehe. Oh, sure, there was a time when the chair didn't exist. And I damn sure didn't sit in it. And Oh, so true, one day the chair will no longer exist.

 

However, due to the quality of the chair and considering my age it is likely that I will no lnoger exist before the chair no longer exists so I'm not going to worry about the chair too much.

 

And for sure I'm not going to worry too much about all those little electrons, protons, neutrons (are those protons that have been neutered?) and all those other subatomic thingamajigs that have nothing to do with my reality.

 

So I will suggest the concept of usefulness. Is this new knowledge useful to me? If not then I (and we) shouldn't worry about it too much. I think that this is also true of spirituality concepts as well. Is this concept useful to use? If the answer is yes then there really is no need to prove its validity. If it is preventing us from living a full and satisfied life then something is wrong, IMO.

[3bob]

Well, as I am not supposed to be all that wrapped up in the passage of time but rather live in the now, the chair exists now so that I might utilize it. Hehehe. Oh, sure, there was a time when the chair didn't exist. And I damn sure didn't sit in it. And Oh, so true, one day the chair will no longer exist.

 

However, due to the quality of the chair and considering my age it is likely that I will no lnoger exist before the chair no longer exists so I'm not going to worry about the chair too much.

 

And for sure I'm not going to worry too much about all those little electrons, protons, neutrons (are those protons that have been neutered?) and all those other subatomic thingamajigs that have nothing to do with my reality.

 

So I will suggest the concept of usefulness. Is this new knowledge useful to me? If not then I (and we) shouldn't worry about it too much. I think that this is also true of spirituality concepts as well. Is this concept useful to use? If the answer is yes then there really is no need to prove its validity. If it is preventing us from living a full and satisfied life then something is wrong, IMO.

 

Holding one's breath for several minutes is how about how much time one can exist related to the use of the element of air, thus a very high importance should be given to that element. Now for a moment imagine the 'life force' being ten-thousand times more refined than air and also ten-thousand times more important than air... thus without it one's body would instantly topple over dead, would such be useful to one's life and also in helping others after coming into knowing the validity and connection of such beyond conceptual ideas?

 

Om

 

(and why does a Sage even bother with coming into such subtle knowing,if we accept the possibility that they even do?)

Edited December 30, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Holding one's breath for several minutes is how about how much time one can exist related to the use of the element of air, thus a very high importance should be given to that element. Now for a moment imagine the 'life force' being ten-thousand times more refined than air and also ten-thousand times more important than air... thus without it one's body would instantly topple over dead, would such be useful to one's life and also in helping others after coming into knowing the validity and connection of such beyond conceptual ideas?

 

Om

 

(and why does a Sage even bother with coming into such subtle knowing,if we accept the possibility that they even do?)

 

Hi Bob,

 

Well, as I am already known as a Doubting Thomas here I have no problem with continuing this discussion. True, we cannot exist very long without air. Or water. So should I form some image of some form of god and personify air into this godliness? And water too? How about all the food I eat? Make them gods too?

 

Okay, let's imagine an essence named "life force". (Actually, that is already a part of my belief system in that 'life force' is a component of our personal Chi although I do not attribute any attributes (Gee, that sounds funny) to it.) And yes, if we lose our life force we die. That is a given in my belief system. Can I prove any of this? Heck no.

 

And yes, I do speak to the concept whenever it is brought to my attention (in most any thread).

 

But I totally refuse to accept any teaching in the vein of "if you don't do this you won't get the heaven" or whatever the trick of the day happenes to be. It is my opinion that a person's spirituality is a personal thing and even the recognition of spirituality is as well a personal thing.

 

Can it honestly be said that there is a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way? Even considering that I accept the concept of 'life force' I have no way of proving its existence and therefore I wouldn't expect anyone to accept my recommendation that they should also believe in the concept.

 

Now, a chair? Yep. I offer a person a chair so they might rest their weary bones and muscles. The person accepts the chair and has a seat. Therein is its usefulness. Wherein is the usefulness of believing in 'life force'? I don't know. It has helped me a little but again, this is a personal thing.

 

Imagine if frogs had wings! They wouldn't have to jump so often and thereby they would require less food for energy. (Of course, that would depend on the functionality of its wings, which they really don't have but we are just imagining.)

 

I'm really not going anywhere with this. Just babbling.

 

Where's the proof? They say that the proof in the pudding is in its eating. Where do we go from here?

Edited December 30, 2010 by Marblehead

[Brian]

Just food for thought...

 

[Marblehead]

Just food for thought...

 

Care to translate that into English?

[Brian]

[manitou]

This seems to fit - it's a poem I just found in an old box.

 

THE DETECTIVE

 

A detective, I,

Born into my nature the love

Of piecing together

A puzzle.

 

For years my talents

given to the City

Poking into nooks and crannies

And solving the crime.

 

Dark and frightening alleys

I walked with trepidation,

Sinister deeds and black hearts

The pieces to my game.

 

The City behind me,

I no longer empower a jury of twelve

To determine Truth.

My only jury has become

The ringing assent of my own heart.

[Otis]

Wherein is the usefulness of believing in 'life force'? I don't know. It has helped me a little but again, this is a personal thing.

I don't think it is useful to believe in it. Believing in it, just makes it something separate from me, something "out there" that I have to learn to control. And it freezes me into a mental concept, from which I begin to judge my experience of that energy.

 

However, using "life force" as a metaphor, to help discover how energy moves inside of me; that is very useful. Feeling and exploring Qi, without belief as to what it is or how it works, has been a path of great liberation.

 

I think that is why Buddha would prefer to preach, by holding up a flower. I think he knew that once he started putting things into words, that he was going to divide his audience into the believers and the non-believers. Whereas, he (IMO) wasn't interested in getting people to believe, just in getting people to wake up. The beliefs are just "training wheels", for those who can use them, to be discarded as soon as possible.

[Marblehead]

I don't think it is useful to believe in it. Believing in it, just makes it something separate from me, something "out there" that I have to learn to control. And it freezes me into a mental concept, from which I begin to judge my experience of that energy.

 

Yes, that would be a problem. But if we view it as an eternal (as long as we live) part of us then it is no longer 'out there' but it is within and one part of what makes us 'us'. Then we can proceed as you pointed out in the remaining paragraphs.

 

And true, we don't want to create any more separatedness than we already have in our life. Western culture is especially good at separating things. I think Eastern culture is much better at keeping things together.