I have no "proof" of spirit, nor do I claim to have proof. My thesis is to simply show that the concept is within scientific plausibility.

That's all I claim.

Atheists who try to claim that it's beyond scientific plausibility are the people I argue with.

Besides, if scientists had to "prove" their hypotheses before they could prove them, then science it's would be a meaningless concept.

Can a String Theorist prove the existence of their noodles?

No they can't. They hope that maybe someday they will be able to show that there can be no other conclusion that strings must exist.

Well how is that any different from an idea of spirit?

Scientifically the idea of "spirit" could be reduced to an idea of "organized information" existing in a non-physical world that actually affects the status of this world.

Well, gee. If we "define" spirit in this way then Quantum Mechanics and all of the experimental observations that have "proven" it, demands that "spirit must exist" (by the definition I just gave for spirit).

You mention a "Christian version of Scientology....."

But I'm not talking about a jealous Zeus-like god who is going to get upset with you if you pee in his Corn Flakes. In fact, I'm not even speaking about "morality" or "expected behaviors" or anything along those lines.

The kind of "spiritual essence" that I'm speaking about simply transcends the physical and is timeless.

As I mentioned earlier, Albert Einstein showed us that time, as we perceive it to be, is actually a physical fabric of physical reality.

Well, if the true essence of our nature transcends the physical world, then our true essence can also transcend time because time is just a property of the physical world.

Thus IF our true nature is genuinely "spiritual" then we can indeed be immortal beings having a temporary "mortal" dream.

All I'm saying is that modern science has not ruled this out.

On the contrary the science of Quantum Physics has opened the door wide to this possibility, thus making it scientifically plausible

And that's all I'm saying.

So when you ask me for 'proof' you don't understand that I'm just offering a scientifically plausible theory. The proof for it may or may not come in the future. Just as the proof for strings may or may not pan out for the String Theorists.

My ideas are totally scientifically plausible, and that's really my only argument here.

I'm offering plausibility arguments not proofs. I have no proofs, nor do I claim to. I could be wrong! I confess to that!

Good humor there.

What Jeannie says is true though, we all exist in both the physical and the non-physical world, if for no other reason that via our imagination. We can imagine things that are not possible in the physical world. It's there something rather strange about that?

I mean, if physics is all that exists, then why should we be able to imagine things beyond what can exist?

So Funches, you're saying that this cloud of smoke and dust settled, evolved into a bunch of conscious minds, and then began to dream about things that it can't possible even do or know of?

That's an interesting hypothesis right there.

Can you prove that's the sum total of reality?

Or can you explain what evidence you have that there can't be anything beyond that?

The things I believe -- I have given a lot of thought to. I have no desire to 'prove' it to anyone. I will share them to people who are interested, but I have no desire or need to argue about them.

I have been proving the law of attraction to myself these past few days and giving it a lot of thought and practice.

I've been seeing it work quite well on little things. I have noticed that some of the things I asked for, I actually already had,-- I just could't see them. When I asked for them (out loud) then suddenly I saw them. They were right there in front of my nose! Have you ever heard the saying, "If it would have been a snake, it would have bit you?" It was like that.

That got me to wondering how many other things I have already that is right in front of my nose that I am just not seeing.

But yesterday I said.. (out loud) "I want a publisher for my deck...I think." (Yes I said, "I think.")

Today I got an email from a publisher. But it is from a digital publisher who wants to use my deck for some digital program or service...and pay me royalties. Now THAT is an interesting coincidence. I don't know the details yet.

Veddy eeneresting.

Congratulations - your cards certainly are beautiful creations, it would be nice to know that so many other people were sharing your artwork.

Thanks, I'll let you know what happens. I just thought it was quite interesting timing. Yes, I shall continue to 'test' the power of the law of attraction. I may become a bigger believer if it continues to work this good and this fast.

Abracadabra ...yes it is rather strange especially since you just claim in a post on this very page that you have no proof and were only offering "plausibility arguments"...but now amazingly you're once again trying to claim that it's true still not providing any proof that it is

that is why a spiritual existence as of now can only be classified as a religious belief ...and you have faith

if you and JennieBean claim that you two exist in another non-physical world ...is it that you only happen to exist there when you are asleep?

Funches you too exist in the physical and the non-physical world.

oh jeez....please don't say that you are referring to cyber space

yes, i am a great agnostic. i believe nothing but you left out the other part of being agnostic. i question everything. speaking here with you and abracadabra is not unlike speaking with many of the faithful. they often times consider me closed minded simply because i'll not bother to read the bible so i'd have the benefit of understanding their religion. doesn't occure to them that i've looked at such things and found them rediculous. what i've learned about souls and spirits i also have found to be rediculous concepts. rediculous doesn't mean impossible. impossible means can't happen, where i see the concept of spirits and souls as so implausible as to deserve ridicule.

you seem to think you can know such things as what bores me, my thinking on science and method, etc., just as the faithful know my morals and ethics. you've obviously no enterest whatsoever in my actual thinking as you've even posted insulting yawns, snoring and lauphing little yellow smiley faces when replying to my posts. i ridicule your concept of soul yet you ridicule me personally. i didn't say pondering possibilities bore me. you said that. you seem to think that because i can't imagine what you can imagine that i've no imagination? now you say that discussing possibilities would just bore me. is that how you make your point jeannie? with insulting little cybercartoons to convey your message with yawning and laughter? you say the thread isn't about me and yet it's me and not my posts that you are directing these antics at. what bores me has no more to do with agnosticism than what excites you has to do with nascar racing. but as i say, i'm thrilled when a thread turns to talk about me, what does and doesn't bore me and other aspects that you think you have a clue about my personality that you wish to discuss. or we can get back to issues concerning religion. up to you. i'm entertained either way.

Agnostic -

I have a sister that says she is agnostic and for all intents and purposes she is a practicing atheist.

From what I can gather agnostic to mean is you are willing to talk about the nature of God if someone can show you evidence that God could exist. But without evidence to show He exists, rather than taking a wait and see approach it is usually hostile to someone that does believe. She is totally unwilling to talk about faith or religion or God at all. Talking about it just gets her angry.

Otherwise, she uses Missouri's slogan. "Show Me."

She loves science and philosophy but if you can't show a clear logical progression to your thought, she dismisses it as musings of a madman.

What would you say agnostic means to you?

JennieBean....the clue was when I notice that you wild and crazy guys changed the wording from spiritual to non-physical ...so now I won't have to be accuse of not reading the posts

but then again Cyber Space would still be part of the physical world

i know many like your sister who place importance on proof or evidence before they'll discuss god. she sounds to me more like a weak atheist than an agnostic. by weak atheist i mean someone who doesn't believe in god but is open to the possibility if some evidence or proof of god could be brought forward. but you didn't ask me what weak atheist means to me, did you. the word "agnostic" means to me which is unknown and unknowable as the word "gnostic" what is known or knowable. the "and" in the definition of agnostic is as important as the "or" in the definition of "gnostic."

you'll hear many definitions of theist, atheist, agnostic, etc., during religious discussions and i suppose we can all call ourselves and each other anything we want. we certainly hear often one christian saying another christain, say a kkk klansman, really isn't a real christian because he doesn't conduct himself as the first christian does and yet the klansman must profess jesus as his savior and son of god or he'll not be given his official sheet. so i suppose i'm guilty of calling your sister a weak atheist and not a real agnostic because she leaves herself open to examining evidence that prooves god exists if ever it can be provided. i maintain that such evidence can never be provided in the first place. she deals in what if. i don't. hope that helps.

Thanks, it does...

Practicing atheist? I just wonder what kind of practice that is.

Well, I've gone to a practicing atheist.

Had a nice office. He welcomed me in and we sat and talked about nothing!

Still waiting for the bill...

Atheism is a practice of none belief in a God. A non belief nevertheless is a belief. You BELIEVE there is not God. There is no way to have absolutely no belief less you've never heard of God or any form of existence. When you state you do not believe in God, right there is stating a belief. A belief in the none existence of God.

Still, I am wondering how one would practice it.

which came first

The Atheist or The Believer?

but anyway technically God is an Atheist

jesus prayed to the Father ..so exactly who did The Father pray to

if the answer is no one...then God is an Atheist