How to prove?

[ecco]

Most likely.

I would be so interested in experiencing how people thought, in a natural state, before knowing various religions. How would they describe things?

"If I sharpen this stone, it will penetrate deeper into the body of the antelope and make it easier to kill".


I really don't understand your comment.

 

[ecco]

Someone who decides he is an atheist after being less than satisfied with their given religion at the time is not really an atheist. He is a religious person looking for a different religion/god.

Fair enough - even if they claim not to follow an organized religion?

Perhaps I should have said:

He is a spiritual person looking for a different religion/god.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It needs to be proven, or, at least, evidenced, only if you want it to be accepted by others.
Lots of things we can't directly perceive are generally accepted, if consistent, reproducible effects can be demonstrated, unexplainable by other hypotheses.
But what is the significance? What does this have to do with anything spiritual?

It means that the brain is more then just a thing in the head that conver our thoughts to what we can understand.

 

[dfnj]

How to prove spirituality to someone when spiritually is something that happens within us?
How to prove to someone that realm we do not see with physical eyes does exist?
Does it need to be proven to someone who do not belive in other then physical existance?

It has been shown we do not live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Just google "materialism debunked".

Since the observer in the Universe alters what is being observed which has been shown to trickle up to the macro level then the only logical conclusion, given the absence of proof of materialism, the true nature of the Universe is based on some type of subjective experience. Of course, there are so many ways to experience reality subjectively we need a good heuristic to wade through the silly superstitions and pick the best superstition that fits the data points we know to exist.

The problem with the scientific materialists is they do not believe they have a dogma. They believe the axioms and assumptions making up their dogma are absolute truths that cannot be question.

To answer your question the best way is to lead by example. If spirituality is all that it is cracked up to be then people who have a strong enthusiasm will draw other people to their way of thinking by example.

"Proven" is the wrong word. You cannot prove a dogma's axioms or assumptions as being true. A dogma's axioms and assumptions are accepted as being true without any proof. That is what makes them assumptions. Axioms and assumptions are choices not decisions based on proof. Once a dogma's assumptions have been established, only then can assertions be proven true or false.

 

[ChristineM]

PET scans actually

Fmri detects brain activity through changes in blood flow
A pet scan detects through measuring sugar levels.

Both work

 

[Falvlun]

"If I sharpen this stone, it will penetrate deeper into the body of the antelope and make it easier to kill".


I really don't understand your comment.

Sorry!

I meant in regards to a “spiritual experience” — assuming that “spiritual experiences” happen sans religions.

How would a person within a culture without the concept of any religion describe a spiritual experience? Mostly just thinking out loud.

 

[Windwalker]

How to prove spirituality to someone when spiritually is something that happens within us?

To what end?

How to prove to someone that realm we do not see with physical eyes does exist?

Can you prove the taste of an orange? If someone is intrigued by your description, then they may wish to try tasting an orange themselves. But without tasting it, there is no proof of its taste possible.

Does it need to be proven to someone who do not belive in other then physical existance?

The spiritual is something that is either attractive to someone, or it doesn't garner their attention. That's their path. Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The only proof of the spiritual is actual experience. Not a theory about oranges.

 

[osgart]

If created, then a creative realm is probable to exist.

The experience of being alive does not fit the box its in.

Subjective introspection without preconclusions.

Non locality exists. Where's the bridge between the particles? Instant effect. Perhaps an omnipresent force. Definetly not a wormhole.

Qualities of being exist that are non physical concepts, such as love, loyalty, reason, memory, peace, joy.

Flip a coin!

 

[Spirit of Light]

To what end?


Can you prove the taste of an orange? If someone is intrigued by your description, then they may wish to try tasting an orange themselves. But without tasting it, there is no proof of its taste possible.


The spiritual is something that is either attractive to someone, or it doesn't garner their attention. That's their path. Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The only proof of the spiritual is actual experience. Not a theory about oranges.

I am glad you asked me this questions

You can not prove a spiritual life, that is why i asked the questions How to prove to someone who does not belive. There is no need to prove it, because the path is personal, it is for you and you only. meaning that when you are on the path it does not matter what thers say or belive, because you are the one who must enlighten to the truth. No matter how much we try to convince the non beliver they will not belive it.
It is not wrong to not belive, and it is not wrong to belive. the answer is. It is what it is.

 

[ManSinha]

Perhaps I should have said:

He is a spiritual person looking for a different religion/god.

No arguments on that

 

[Windwalker]

I am glad you asked me this questions

You can not prove a spiritual life, that is why i asked the questions How to prove to someone who does not belive. There is no need to prove it, because the path is personal, it is for you and you only. meaning that when you are on the path it does not matter what thers say or belive, because you are the one who must enlighten to the truth. No matter how much we try to convince the non beliver they will not belive it.
It is not wrong to not belive, and it is not wrong to belive. the answer is. It is what it is.

Yes, and in reality, it's all a spiritual path, whether one is actively tasting of it or not seeing it. All of life and living is spiritual.

There is a saying I heard that goes, 'We see ourselves as humans on a spiritual journey, but rather we are Spirit on a human journey.' That understanding allows us to see others with compassion, and not judgement. They are on their path to their own eventual Awakening. They are Spirit in that person.

 

[Polymath257]

To what end?


Can you prove the taste of an orange? If someone is intrigued by your description, then they may wish to try tasting an orange themselves. But without tasting it, there is no proof of its taste possible.

This is strange to me. The taste of an orange is neither true nor false. Even to say it tastes good or bad isn't a matter of truth or falsity, although at least those can be opinions.

So I don't see anything to 'prove' about the taste of an orange.

The spiritual is something that is either attractive to someone, or it doesn't garner their attention. That's their path. Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The only proof of the spiritual is actual experience. Not a theory about oranges.

If the goal is to have experiences, then the goal is not truth. That's OK. I like to have experiences also. They are just different from truths. Now, truths can be based on experience through interpretation, hypothesis formation, and testing. Beliefs are also the result of experiences, although usually with far fewer controls and much more subjective than truths.

It just seems strange to me to identify an experience, in and of itself, as having a truth value. The *interpretation* of the experience may well have a truth value (if it goes beyond opinion).

So, I may interpret the wild feeling I get in some circumstances as 'being touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster'. Whether that interpretation is correct or not depends on whether FSM exists and whether I was, in fact, touched by that being.

But, even if I don't interpret the experience correctly, I still had an experience.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How to prove spirituality to someone when spiritually is something that happens within us?
How to prove to someone that realm we do not see with physical eyes does exist?

Does it need to be proven to someone who do not belive in other then physical existance?

I never felt the need to prove anything experiential to anyone. If it was meant to be proven to them, they would have experienced it themselves.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Go back a step and question your assumptions. If you can't demonstrate it to others, what reason do you have to accept it as true?

If you have good reasons, then these should give you ideas of how you can demonstrate the truth of your ideas to others.

Interesting.

How do I go about demonstrating to others that I like the taste of honeydew melon better than cantaloupe?

 

[Deidre]

I think it is something that one needs to experience. I was raised on belief alone, with a lot of church rituals and traditions. That didn't make me feel anything, though. i think that faith/spirituality is something that when felt, can't be mistaken for something else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting.

How do I go about demonstrating to others that I like the taste of honeydew melon better than cantaloupe?

Aesthetic preferences are a fair bit removed from what the OP is talking about: demonstrating that "realms" exist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Aesthetic preferences are a fair bit removed from what the OP is talking about: demonstrating that "realms" exist.

Granted, a fair bit removed, but still quite relevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Granted, a fair bit removed, but still quite relevant.

Is it?

Edit:

To expand - the OP is about demonstrating something that's given as part of an external reality. Maybe hard to detect, but still existing objectively.

OTOH, you're talking about objectively confirming what's entirely subjective... so a very different kettle of fish.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is it?

Can you demonstrate the experience of taste preference any more than I can demonstrate an experience of God? If not, then yes, it's relevant.

 

[Polymath257]

Sometimes I think I lack some sort of 'spirituality gene'. I can get a feeling of 'oneness' when looking at stars or a sense of peace when visiting a Buddhist shrine or even some relaxation and centering from meditation. But I fail to see how any one those lead to 'truths' as opposed to a few pleasant experiences.

If the experience of eating an orange is analogous to a religious experience, I fail to see why not just enjoy the experience as opposed to thinking it reveals some deeper truth about the universe.