I think they can be proved but one must be open to the reality of intuitive perceptions and spiritually based practices.
For instance, mediums open themselves up to spirits from beyond the physical plane. However, one must not be skeptical and proclaim that the medium
is just acting.
Of course, they can be authenticated. However, most people exist within the physical plane and have a prove it consciousness and mentality. Many people are ruled by the logical and scientific method in which there must be some type of verifiable evidence or it is not authentic. Well, there are things that cannot be proven yet they are real. Good post, Kathryn, but you are going to have some very strong distractors who will vehemently disagree with this position. Good luck! I might add that this premise was very logically presented!
Nice pics, gm.
- as far as distractors, they won't bother... believe me.
Oh YES, THEY will..........THEY will bother, THEY....will....trust me 1,2.....3......
456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20...
NOPE. I could bet you a Hamilton I am right.
And You of all posters should know!
How many forum posts do you have that no one responded to.
(Many, from my peeks.) Yet you consistently forge forth with new and improved (or not) posts.
No betting. In the Religious forums, there are ALWAYS going to be distractors, negaters, and other types of haters. It is PAR for the course! What Religious forum DOESN'T have the haters and negaters in addition to the infamous distractors participate? None, THEY are going to come. THEY ALWAYS do!
I still say no one will bother. On the horizon the crickets chirp...
because the medium is not acting...He is channeling...He actually allowed an entity to utilize his body for the supposed purpose of enlightening people. He could read auras. Mine was green Was he acting? I was 14 at the time and quite frightened by the whole experience. He told me I was shy and asked me why. It made me cry. How did he know? I didn't know what to say ... I had no idea why I was so shy! still don't. Something bad must've happened in my last life. l'll Never know though because those braincells are gone gone gone. When we lose our bodies we also loose our memories. Thank goodness. Clean starts are a good thing. Can you imagine if we could remember all our lifetimes? Ill stop keyboarding now.
A lot of my posts have been responded to. Posts are like lotteries; some have responses and some do not. However THIS post will have lots of responses-there are PEOPLE out there who doubt and disbelieve in the spiritual.
As it happens, I've just posted a response on the topic of proof in the metaphysical domain in another thread, But I probably will not contribute anything further to your thread because anything I might have to offer has already been dismissed by an outpouring of scorn and abuse from your only other respondent. So why should I enter where clearly unwelcome? Good luck with the thread
I believe in the metaphysical. So please place YOUR response HERE! You are welcome to state your case. I am for the spiritual and metaphysical. There are worlds and experiences beyond the mere physical. I am not a secularist. I AM NOT one who discount spiritual realities, they DO exist. Besides, people have the unmitigated right to believe what they please as long as it does not infringe upon the beliefs and rights of others. So, again, present your case and post! It is WELCOMED. You have me confused with someone else
A few points come to mind: to a 14 year old, being told you have a green aura and are shy could easily engender the sort of confusion and discomfort that would manifest itself as extreme shyness - a self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe?
To jump from that to the conclusion that "something bad must've happened in my last life" seems a bit extreme. Who says you had a last life? You say yourself that all memories from it are erased and clean starts are good. That seems to be saying that your last life/lives are, for you, an article of faith, wholly unverifiable.
I'm seeing plenty evidence of faith in your position, but none of proof, as yet.
Let me offer something: at certain times, I have experienced highly intense emotional responses to particular passages of music or sometimes of poetry. It would be possible to attribute this as evidence for something supernatural. Many people do. But it is equally possible and, I'd say, a lot more likely that it is a wholly natural and fortuitous coming together of excellent art with an unusually receptive frame of mind (which can't be willed into existence to order, as it depends on too many factors).
To be proven you must supply evidence, one doesn't need to be open to the possibility if presented with solid evidence. There are however many people making a living off of others gullibility. Don't be taken.
Kathryn, I respect your position. The problem I see with the post as it is worded in regard to the title is that you present your quuestion and then give your own definitive answer without really allowing that oyher points of view might be valid. You dismiss the participation of others by basically saying thaat if they are not "open" to the supernatural or open to anything beyond "this" plane of existence, then they are wrong. Can the metaphysical be proven? Perhaps to your satisfaction it can, but to those who only accept "proof" as something of a physical nature, it cannot.
If you feel that it can, why pretend to invite dissenting viewpoints while at the same time dismissing them so neatly?
If you have a genuine apparent experience, i.e. there is no reason for you to think you are dreaming, hallucinating etc. and you attribute that experience to something supernatural, then you are perfectly entitled to hold that belief without having to 'prove' it to anyone.
All basic beliefs are grounded in experience. They are not founded on evidence. Someone does not believe they had orange juice with their breakfast because they saw CCTV footage of themselves drinking it. Their belief is grounded in their experience of it. Even if there was no evidence available they would still believe it, because they experienced it. So evidence is irrelevant to whether they believe it or not, or indeed whether they are entitled to believe it.
Evidence only comes into play when you are trying to convince someone else who, by definition, cannot share your personal experience. In that case you have to find some way of sharing that experience. For those who value scientific method as the only valid source of knowledge, simply sharing such experience will not suffice.
However the fact that someone cannot scientifically prove something does not mean they are not entitled to believe it. Something does not even have to be scientifically provable for you to be entitled to believe it. It is perfectly rational to believe something you have genuinely, apparently experienced. In fact it would be irrational not to.
Trusting our senses helps us survive. So we are inclined to do so. Not trusting our senses is counter-intuitive. That's why we are more likely to believe something we see/hear/smell/taste/touch in person than something we are told. And we are entitled to continue in that belief until someone/something categorically proves either that our senses were faulty, or that we are incorrect in our attribution of that experience.
Kathryn, TOLD YA! THEY WILL COME. THEY HAVE ARRIVED! THEY'RE HEEEERE.
This is your idea of a welcoming environment?
I was not addressing you but those who make fun and disrespect those who have a more spiritual and metaphysical bent on life. Wasn't not thinking of you at all. Paraglider, you know how the Religion and Philosophy Forums operate. There are those contenders who go into attack mode at the slightest hint of disagreement. Atheists make fun of and attack religionists and vice versa.
Ms. Hill has presented an intelligent and thought provoking post with some great insights and there was someone who discounted what she has eloquently elucidated. Ms. Hill indicated that there will not be discounters so no one will come to her thread, I elected to disagree because on the Religion and Philosophy Forums, SOMEONE is BOUND to disagree and SOME will be QUITE VENOMOUS and VITUPERATIVE in their disagreements. There are THOSE who have such reputations, you and Ms. Hill excluded.
You and Ms. Hill have always conducted yourselves with the ulitmate and utmost class, maturity, and professionalism. I have witnessed some of the Religion and Philosophy Forums and it can be quite viperishly contentious. A king cobra, black mamba, and an inland taipan would not be able to survive and endure the environment in many of such religious forums. Wish many posters in the Religion and Philosophy Forums were like you two. God Bless and Have a Lovely Day!
The only one I see being VENOMOUS and VITUPERATIVE is you.
Mark - I suspect we are having the good cop / bad cop roles thrust upon us
Well - that is what Christianity is all about - isn't it?
Anyway, I seem to have killed the Islamic thread as well, this morning
gmwilliams: "No betting. In the Religious forums, there are ALWAYS going to be distractors, negaters, and other types of haters. It is PAR for the course!"
hmmm. . .
Where I would have a problem is with the idea that 'proof' appears to require a noncritical attitude of predisposition to believe. Have you ever noticed that if you invite a damp-course technician to survey your house for rising damp, he'll invariably find evidence of it? Something like that.
It seems that "to be proven" experientially, and "to be proven" scientifically are different. I think it is obvious that any open-minded person would have to accept at least the possibility of other planes of existence, due to the fact that others claim to have experiential knowledge and familiarity with them.
The second is more tricky. Something like Kirlian photography is a great tool for the scientific endeavor to prove the existence of others planes of existence. However, it seems that we haven't developed the technology yet to "prove" as much as we know or can experience to be true....yet.
I'm certain technology will eventually catch up and these aspects of human existence and reality can be confirmed scientifically.
I am thinking that is because you don't understand that these "planes of existence" are wholly internal and subjective. We have already confirmed them scientifically.
Whether or not one can prove "metaphysical" experiences (let's not call them realities until proven) will depend on your definition of "proof".
If a "feeling" of truth is sufficient for you the of course it can. Anything can be "proven" with such a low level of proof - all it takes, as you note, is to suspend skepticism and declare whatever you want to be true as proven. This level of proof is more accurately termed "belief".
If testable, verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable actions/observations are required, probably not. People have tried to prove such things for millennia and not one has passed this higher level of proof. And, of course, skepticism is absolutely necessary at this level.
Of course, you will also have to clearly define such terms as "metaphysical" and "spiritual" as nearly everyone has a different concept of what is being discussed. For instance, intuition comes to conclusions without normal amounts of evidence, but it is not a "perception"; it is a conclusion arrived at by reason. Nothing has been "perceived".
Well, there you have it. Most people have never had a supernatural experience.
So far, the vote results are more than a billion to two: Me and Jesus. Well, and Krishna, and Buddha, and saints of various religions, hmmm... ok so a handful (who think they have) had supernatural experiences to more than a billion who haven't....
Conclusion at this point: metaphysical realities aren't provable.
You know what this means, right?
- we all have to become atheists.
Would that make wilderness, et al happy?
Overall, no. While it would of course prevent the rabid right from trying to force their religious view on everyone else, that seems to be a defect in the person, not the religion. They will just find something else to control others with - maybe the size of the soda they can purchase.
There is nothing innately wrong with believing whatever you wish to believe, whether proven or not, as long as it does not become a controlling factor in your everyday life and you do not insist that everyone else believe it as well. Yes, some believers in the supernatural DO let it control their lives, but there will always be a handful of people that march to a very, very different drum.
It's already been proven to be the very same chemical reaction as addiction.
Maybe what people get addicted to is a substitute for love. Which came first. Can the scientists determine that?
...which God through evolution created within their little brains. And I can't prove that. I just believe it...GASP.
It is provable only to myself...
And that is provable enough
When metaphysics gets proved it stops being metaphysics. People used to think pigeons came home by using psychic abilities, then we worked out how they really do it.
by Bmm2094 years ago
Often, a dispute or argument is about religion. A lot of times, I'm drawn into it since I'm very religious myself. But, often I hesitate to respond because it can cause a war online( aka, a flame war). I usually have,...
by Shinkicker4 years ago
I don't mind folk debating Theology and the Meaning of Life but there are some people on Hubpages who keep banging on from their electronic pulpit about Jesus and the Bible. I think it's time that Hubpages considered...
by jirel3 years ago
Well ,I believe in metaphysical things.I have heard of various stories of witchcraft and other supernatural powers.Some get power from spirits, some through angels, genies, etc.They use these supernatural methods for...
by Peter Owen5 years ago
Why are people posting so many religeous or spiritual questions in a forum for Writers? Is it that some just like to start arguments that cannot be proven either way? Or, the more likely, are some using forums for doing...
by Ron Karn5 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by mrcheese4 years ago
If it's called religion and philosophy, it's not restricted to those that have any one particular belief set. And I bet I was banned for not chosing sides.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.