I can not see it, so it does not exist

[Spirit of Light]

I do not accept the claim that there are spiritual teaching or practices in anything but a metaphorical sense of the word 'spiritual'. I accept that there are words, action and thought that are considered to be correct according to your teaching or practices. But only in the same way that there are correct words, action and thought in any organization; be they businesses, clubs, religions or ways.

I do not accept the foundational claim that spiritual has correspondence to reality.

Ok, thank you for answering my question.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It is not that simple because then you can't explain how we can learn to do 2+2=4.

The statement was that "science" was mere belief. I would admit that it is belief... but it is grounded in actual observation and tempered by reproducibility. Belief in a religious sense IS NOT.

2+2=4, is not actually the purview of "science," as that term is colloquially being used here, now is it?

Science is not the only thing, humans can replicate. We can also replicate the beliefs in religion otherwise they couldn't spread it. Science is a human behavior and so it is religion and both can be taught to others.

I could teach my child that unicorns used to exist and humans road on their backs to fight off an evil dragon invasion from the outer-fringes of the dome of the sky. I could literally teach that to my children. Do I need evidence to do so? I would state that I need EXACTLY the same amount as any religion has for its claims. Just that much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.

This off course is a far to simplistic, not to say false, representation of what the arguments usually really are....

Let's take your examples and write it down correctly:

- since I have never been presented with valid rational evidence for god, I see no reason to believe a god exists.

- since I have never been presented with valid rational evidence for ghosts, I see no reason to believe ghosts exist.

- since I have never been presented with valid rational evidence for spiritual beings, I see no reason to believe such beings exist. Unless you speak in abstract terms. In that case, I would say that spiritual beings do exist: we call them "humans".

Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?​

I don't think I have ever seen an atheist say that the reason they don't believe in gods is because they "can not see them". OBVIOUSLY plenty of things that can't be "seen" are accepted as being very very real....

Some examples: radioactivity, magnetism, quantum particles, air, atoms (although technically, this can be seen using a crazy-*** microscope), ultra-violet light, radio waves, sound waves, ... etc etc etc

A thing not being perceivable through the human eye, is not at all a proper argument against the existance of that thing.

There are a lot more forms of detecting / measuring / supporting a manifestation of something beyond mere eyesight.......​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is the self-refuting joke of naive empiricism and only that which can be seen is real, because you can't see real.

That is not at all what empiricism is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think you may misunderstanding me a bit. As a practitioner, I should follow the teaching. But nothing prohibits me from going to a doctor for advice of certain issues.
Of course I could leave it to faith, but in some aspect of life I must also apply to the law of the country, and faith healers is not allowed(in Norway) so doctors office it is

And you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that in at least one area of your life you require evidence, experience, trust-in and demonstrations-of real-world applicability. And in other areas of your life you are willing to eschew these things, or at least simply not require them. And I would guess this is due to the fact that there are few personal consequences (except things like what one is "allowed" to do within the confines of their religious belief, obviously outside persecution if such is applicable, etc. - but what I mean is something along the lines of ongoing detriment to one's health or well-being - like not getting your hand sewn back on would be) to one making a choice of their "religion." Which, in my estimation, is one more check in the "does not matter" column.

 

[night912]

Here's some food for thought on the subject; who can say that something or someone does not exist? We "exist" in an extremely vast Universe, therefor just because someone or something does not exist within your own existence does not mean necessarily it doesn't exist. The sun, moon, and stars exist, but personally I will not deny their existence just because I haven't tangibly touched their existence beyond one sense.

That is why we should not believe that something or someone exist without evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that in at least one area of your life you require evidence, experience, trust-in and demonstrations-of real-world applicability. And in other areas of your life you are willing to eschew these things, or at least simply not require them. And I would guess this is due to the fact that there are few personal consequences (except things like what one is "allowed" to do within the confines of their religious belief, obviously outside persecution if such is applicable, etc. - but what I mean is something along the lines of ongoing detriment to one's health or well-being - like not getting your hand sewn back on would be) to one making a choice of their "religion." Which, in my estimation, is one more check in the "does not matter" column.

As a spiritual person I believe in sickness is actually karma, karma is repayed with suffering, pain agony, and so on. So using medicine is a form a f stopping the karma from being repayed.
So choosing to to fix the arm does not mean it is wrong, it is just a part of life as human being.

I was born with spin a bifida and hydrocephalus syndrome, my parents asked the doctor to fix me when I was less then a week old, so I did not have a saying on that matter. But if I did have a saying, I would ask to not be operated. And yes that would have caused me to die within a short time.

But as babies, we have no saying.
I do live a reasonably good life now. So I do not blame my parents. They did what every parents would do with a son or daughter who is ill.

Personally I see my "illness" as karmic reaction.

 

[night912]

I draw a line when personal attack happens. And I will speak up if you or other spread false claim about religion or spiritual teachings.

But there's one thing to remember, there's a distinction between saying false things about what your religion teach and saying that your religion teach false things.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But there's one thing to remember, there's a distinction between saying false things about what your religion teach and saying that your religion teach false things.

You maybe have seen me reply with this start.
In my understanding, it means I have my understanding of the teaching I cultivate. If I was to directly quote my teacher, that would be different, then I would say. According to my teacher and give a direct quote from the teaching. This means it is the founder and teacher of the path that was speaking those words.

When I my self speak, I can have less understanding of the teaching then what the full truth of it say. But by saying " in my understanding" it is clear that I do not quote or try to directly give my teachers wisdom in my answer. I can only explain from my level of understanding. Not from my teacher level.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A person in America who has never heard of me would probably say I don't exist.
But maybe a better answer would be " I do not know if Amanaki exist" or if the person was curious, the answer would be. " I don't know Amanaki, but how can I learn more about him"

To use my self as an example is not the best idea, but if you took the question
"Does God exist" an answer could be, I do not know, but I would like to find the answer. In stead of just say " NO, God can not exist, there is no evidence"

But my question become, did the person do any research in to it, or only rely on "scientific proof of God does not exist"
Note: I do not bash non believers in this tread. I trying find answer to how someone can refute so hard that something they have not seen, or gotten proof of can not exist.

But we can ask a lot of questions about Amanaki, and see if they match anything that we do know of. For example, I could ask, "have you ever posted a response to Evangelicalhumanist on Religious Forums," and if you said "yes," I could go check that. Then I could ask, "do you remember what the topic was?" This time, I've given you no information, but if you correctly identify a topic, I'm developing some pretty good circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is an entity, calling itself Amanaki, who exists substantially enough to use a keyboard and type in English. You see, I'd be getting somewhere. .

But you said you would accept that ghosts do not exist, but you did not say that about God or "spiritual beings." Why the difference? What evidence do you actually have for God or spiritual beings that you do not have for ghosts?

 

[Spirit of Light]

But we can ask a lot of questions about Amanaki, and see if they match anything that we do know of. For example, I could ask, "have you ever posted a response to Evangelicalhumanist on Religious Forums," and if you said "yes," I could go check that. Then I could ask, "do you remember what the topic was?" This time, I've given you no information, but if you correctly identify a topic, I'm developing some pretty good circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is an entity, calling itself Amanaki, who exists substantially enough to use a keyboard and type in English. You see, I'd be getting somewhere. .

But you said you would accept that ghosts do not exist, but you did not say that about God or "spiritual beings." Why the difference? What evidence do you actually have for God or spiritual beings that you do not have for ghosts?

I have only personal experiences with all of them, I can not give visible proof about it, but those are not important to me as a cultivator. Physical evidence can be good, but is not a must in a personal spiritual path. And it is not of important of having to prove to others what my experience was. To experience the same I did, people must cultivate the same teachings, but still then it only become a personal experience for those who practice.

by the way did not state my own views or experience in the OP, those points was just examples.

 

[night912]

You maybe have seen me reply with this start.
In my understanding, it means I have my understanding of the teaching I cultivate. If I was to directly quote my teacher, that would be different, then I would say. According to my teacher and give a direct quote from the teaching. This means it is the founder and teacher of the path that was speaking those words.

When I my self speak, I can have less understanding of the teaching then what the full truth of it say. But by saying " in my understanding" it is clear that I do not quote or try to directly give my teachers wisdom in my answer. I can only explain from my level of understanding. Not from my teacher level.

That's not what I meant. I'll give you an example for clarification. I'll make it simple.

Suppose that your religion believe and teach that:

1+1=3
2+2=4

If I was to say,
"Everything that your religion believe in, is wrong."

VS

"What your religion believe about 1+1is wrong is."

The first is stating something false about your religion, while the second is stating that it believes in something that is false.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's not what I meant. I'll give you an example for clarification. I'll make it simple.

Suppose that your religion believe and teach that:

1+1=3
2+2=4

If I was to say,
"Everything that your religion believe in, is wrong."

VS

"What your religion believe about 1+1is wrong is."

The first is stating something false about your religion, while the second is stating that it believes in something that is false.

Luckily for me the teaching is not about human made mathematics
But I do see your point

 

[ppp]

Luckily for me the teaching is not about human made mathematics
But I do see your point

That replay startles me. Are Buddhas not humans?

 

[Spirit of Light]

That replay startles me. Are Buddhas not humans?

No and yes
Someone who cultivate a spiritual practice, and realize enlightenment at Buddha level becomes a buddha, same as historical Buddha Shakyamuni founder of Buddhism.
So while they cultivate, but has not realized full enlightenment, they are ordinary human. But as soon enlightenment has been realized, they realize fully that they were buddha before they reincarnated on earth to be spiritual teachers.
So Buddha means enlightened being or awake one. The have realized the truth to the level the enlighten on.
So no they are not a human, they are spiritual beings in human form, until they decide to leave our realm, then they are enlightened beings without the physical body and they can go to other dimension or realms.

This is of course only my u understanding of it, info about buddhas will be different if you speak with someone who understand more then I do

 

[Unveiled Artist]

e

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.


Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

My question is. If we haven't heard of the word and concept of god, and can't see it to build that concept, then it would make sense that god would not exist because we can't see it?

There is nothing there to build any conclusion that something may exist that we don't see.

It gets more trickier because now that every other person has a concept of god, all of the sudden this question above is invalidated. Yet, just because we talk about an abstract and subjective concept (meaning the concept, experience, and characteristics given to it exists) doesn't mean it exists that we can see it without our biases.

However, with you, we can question whether you exist or not because your conversation is giving us something concrete to base our opinions and study on. Regardless if we are from Italy, Africa, or the moon you're still exist as an objective party whether we see you or not because we are interacting with you.

However, if Jane on the other side of the world has never met you or seen you, just heard about you and what people write on RF about you, why would she conclude that you exist based on someone else's opinions?

I guess she would need faith to believe you exist if she really wanted. Though many of us don't take the hassle unless you actually shown up on a plane to introduce yourself personally. Since Jane doesn't have RF, Skype, or money to hitch a plane to see you, the question is invalid.

 

[ppp]

No and yes
Someone who cultivate a spiritual practice, and realize enlightenment at Buddha level becomes a buddha, same as historical Buddha Shakyamuni founder of Buddhism.
So while they cultivate, but has not realized full enlightenment, they are ordinary human. But as soon enlightenment has been realized, they realize fully that they were buddha before they reincarnated on earth to be spiritual teachers.
So Buddha means enlightened being or awake one. The have realized the truth to the level the enlighten on.
So no they are not a human, they are spiritual beings in human form, until they decide to leave our realm, then they are enlightened beings without the physical body and they can go to other dimension or realms.

This is of course only my u understanding of it, info about buddhas will be different if you speak with someone who understand more then I do

Thanks.

 

[Bird123]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.


Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. Isn't everyone blind in some way?? How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how?

Isn't that being blind for a long time? The knowledge has always existed staring everyone in the face.

The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. If man was meant to fly, God would have given man wings. Does it get any narrower than that?

What exists is limitless, we are choosing such a narrow view to be blind to so very much. It's all just waiting out there to be Discovered.

That's what I see. It's very clear so it must exist, right?? You can count on that one!!

 

[Spirit of Light]

Thanks.

Very welcome @Joe W

 

[Nakosis]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.


Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

It is reasonable to accept your existence. That's not absolute proof but enough evidence to feel comfortable about you existing.

For God, ghosts and spiritual beings, the experience of these things can be explained in a non-supernatural way. Do these experiences exist? Yes. Are these experiences consistent enough to accept they exist independent or ourself? no.

So, I really haven't seen enough evidence to accept these things exist independently.

Science doesn't really prove anything. It eliminates other possible explanations. So right now our experiences with God, ghosts, spiritual beings have numerous theories, explanations etc... There seems little reason to invest in anyone particular explanation at this time until such time we can start eliminating a few.

The problem with supernatural explanations is they can't be eliminated. For every one you want to believe in the are hundreds of others that can be/have been created.

So I'd don't think I'd ever say something doesn't exist. I'd rather say it's existence is no more likely a possibility than anything else.