Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

That was my point, Prof.

I know.  I wanted the point expounded upon because Star Trek references are the absolute best.

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I know.  I wanted the point expounded upon because Star Trek references are the absolute best.

 

You'll get no disagreement from me on that, Prof.

 

I'm old enough to have seen (and loved) the original series when it first graced our tv screens.

 

 

LLAP!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm old enough to have seen the reruns on Netflix. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm old enough to have seen the reruns on Netflix. 

 

I thought of the original series when flip phones came along.  "Beam me up, Scottie".  I think I have seen every show of the first 3 series at least once.

[walterpthefirst]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Again for the umpteenth time, none of it IS or ever WILL be definable. 

 

If that's so Ed, how do you suggest that this thread should proceed?

As far as I can see further discussion is impossible unless we can agree upon certain definitions.

The 'oxymoron' case being a good example.

Until you defined what you meant by 'individual collectives', we couldn't follow you.

If none of this is definable then I can't see how we can communicate about it.

Unless you can suggest something?

Thank you,

Walter.

 

I've been thinking upon this matter and have realized that in this forum we all face a communication problem.

 

I'll try and explain.

 

Let's suppose that I have certain thoughts, ideas or words that are deeply significant to me, that are rich in meaning for me and that are very, very important to my self worth, my values and everything I hold dear.  These things affect me profoundly on different levels; emotionally, spiritually, mentally, etc. 

 

Perhaps I believe that these things should also be as deeply significant to others as they are to me.  But, because these things are totally personal, private and unique to me, if I want them to be as meaningful other people as they are to me, then I have to find a way of successfully communicating them to others.

 

And here's where the communication problem starts.

 

Apart from attaching images, links and videos, the only tool I have at my disposal for communicating are these lines of text that appear on our computer screens.  Nothing more.  Words, by themselves do not possess the magical power to transfer what is in my mind and my heart directly into the hearts and minds of the other forum members.  Nor can I rely upon telepathy, empathy, Vulcan mind melds, quantum entanglement or magic to convey what I'm feeling and thinking to my fellow members.  

 

Therefore, I have no choice but to use the words on this screen, with all of the limitations that imposes upon me.  But, if I can't articulate something using these words or if I declare something to be somehow beyond definition or beyond understanding, then that's it.  Game over.  If it can't be adequately communicated here on this screen, in words that everyone can follow and comprehend, then I'm just banging my head against a brick wall.  I might as well give up.

 

Perhaps the only comeback other members could hit me with would be the following question.

 

"How do you know that this 'something' is undefinable or beyond human understanding?"

 

And if I can't put that into words that they can all follow and comprehend, then I might end up declaring...

 

"I can't explain it to you.  I just happen to know / feel / believe that it is."

 

 

So, the bottom line seems to me to be this.   Because we are all limited to whatever we can type onto this screen, that imposes a limit on what we can share with each other.  Anything else beyond and we are into the realm of the impossible.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

By saying "it cannot be defined", are you not in fact saying "about this, I know nothing at all"  ???

 

You may not know how to articulate a thing which does indeed exist and is reality.

That happens, on some level, to us all.

 

But to say "there is no definition" is to say that you are unable to establish that it is reality.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

By saying "it cannot be defined", are you not in fact saying "about this, I know nothing at all"  ???

 

You may not know how to articulate a thing which does indeed exist and is reality.

That happens, on some level, to us all.

 

But to say "there is no definition" is to say that you are unable to establish that it is reality.

Or at least an adequate description, if not a proper, Webster's style definition.  "It makes me feel this way and think of the color blue whenever it happens."  That gives the rest of us a starting point from which to establish understanding.  Because likely we understand the feeling described; and can agree on which part of the visual spectrum is representative of blue.

[alreadyGone]

Funny you should use the color blue in this comment...

In the Russian language they have 14 different words to reference the color blue, depending on specific context.

[midniterider]

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

-Oxford internet definition

 

Spirit: the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

-Oxford internet definition

 

"Beyond science" and "non-physical" are probably sticking points for some but there's the generic definitions.

[alreadyGone]

 

Spirit: the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

-Oxford internet definition

 

Notice, this definition depends on another undefinable quantity:  the "soul".

 

This entire definition is obvious bullshit...

Emotion and character are part of one's mental makeup.

They have nothing to do with a "spirit" or anything "supernatural".

[alreadyGone]

EDITED:

Anything "supernatural" is entirely subjective.

 

If it exists outside the laws of nature (physics), by what (human) sense or system of measurement would you prove the existence of the thing?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

40 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Funny you should use the color blue in this comment...

In the Russian language they have 14 different words to reference the color blue, depending on specific context.

Ms. Ex-neck, though Ukrainian by ethnicity, spoke Russian as her native language.  I find it a course, vulgar, barbarian tongue, though I admit to a small amount of personal bias.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Anything "supernatural" is by definition subjective.

 

 

Can a definition be subjective and still be a definition (i.e. "definitive")?

[alreadyGone]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Can a definition be subjective and still be a definition (i.e. "definitive")?

 

".. is entirely subjective"

[Edgarcito]

I assume we can describe ourselves in the place where we exist and perhaps a few steps beyond.  So we perceive ourselves as both objective and subjective.  I expect our definitions are both objective and subjective, but our objective ones are labeled with "certainty" because we ultimately are still only subjects.....and will be as humans.  Hence A definition, but very loose.

 

Perhaps given we actually understand the mechanisms of the brain and then calculate all the environmental and genetic factors, we might turn the "soul" into a more certain definition.

 

I'll donate my brain to ExC in a pickle jar if y'all would wish to study it after my demise....

 

 

[alreadyGone]

My behavior and reasoning may sometimes be subjective, but the fact of my existence I take to be an objective fact.

 

"I think, therefore I am".

 

Your experience may vary..

[Edgarcito]

This whole discussion is why I'm asking myself if we start with some proposed solution.... like the Bible and ask ourselves if the prescribed solutions to life hold true in reverse order.  For example, does the solution prescribed for a wise elderly person work also for the teen.  We always look at it from our beginning to end but rarely in the opposite direction.

 

Just an abstract thought....

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

My behavior and reasoning may sometimes be subjective, but the fact of my existence I take to be an objective fact.

 

"I think, therefore I am".

 

Your experience may vary..

It should be, "I think, therefore I'm certain".  Fact doesn't belong to us.  

Look at how loose the statement is.  I think, therefore I am.  What in the hell does "I am" really mean with regard to fact.  I think you used the world bullshit earlier....

[alreadyGone]

That original quote is intended to convey various things, both philosophic and poetic.

 

Among them:

I think, and that satisfies my quest to have certainty that I do indeed exist.

 

 

 

I think perhaps you seek to argue for the sake of doing so.

Sorry, not particularly interested today.

 

My original challenge stands:

Provide objective evidence for the existence of any spirit, of any kind, anywhere.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Spirit: the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

-Oxford internet definition

 

Notice, this definition depends on another undefinable quantity:  the "soul".

 

This entire definition is obvious bullshit...

Emotion and character are part of one's mental makeup.

They have nothing to do with a "spirit" or anything "supernatural".

 

Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

 

 

[midniterider]

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I assume we can describe ourselves in the place where we exist and perhaps a few steps beyond.  So we perceive ourselves as both objective and subjective.  I expect our definitions are both objective and subjective, but our objective ones are labeled with "certainty" because we ultimately are still only subjects.....and will be as humans.  Hence A definition, but very loose.

 

Perhaps given we actually understand the mechanisms of the brain and then calculate all the environmental and genetic factors, we might turn the "soul" into a more certain definition.

 

I'll donate my brain to ExC in a pickle jar if y'all would wish to study it after my demise....

 

 

 

Good post. Definitions are just mental constructs. 

[alreadyGone]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

 

 

 

"regarded as..."

 

Good luck looking for objective evidence of a soul.

 

 

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.

When you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind. It may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”    - Lord Kelvin

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

55 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

".. is entirely subjective"

That would obviously depend on whether or not the entirety can be measured.  If I say, "this is entirely too big to exist within my front yard" then we're dealing in objectivity.  But if I say, "this is entirely too complicated to be defined by mere words," then... well, I can't explain it but hearing the Russian language makes me feel angry and see red.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

 

 

Here we've entered into circular reasoning, perhaps unwittingly. 

 

"Define 'spirit'."

 

"That's somebody's soul."

 

"Okay, define 'soul'."

 

"Well, that's the spiritual part of somebody."

 

♾

[Edgarcito]

21 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

That original quote is intended to convey various things, both philosophic and poetic.

 

Among them:

I think, and that satisfies my quest to have certainty that I do indeed exist.

 

 

 

I think perhaps you seek to argue for the sake of doing so.

Sorry, not particularly interested today.

 

My original challenge stands:

Provide objective evidence for the existence of any spirit, of any kind, anywhere.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to argue at all.  I'm sorry, but I don't think you are actually comprehending the objective/subjective aspect of the conversation.