I'd like to show why none of these ideas you brought up is in anyway helpful for someone trying to resolve the dividing line between "spiritual" and "material."
randman writes:
1. Spiritual things are generally invisible, at least most of the time. That's not an absolute statement but invisible to people.
"Invisible" does not apply exclusively to things that are "spiritual," so this is insufficient.
randman writes:
2. The spiritual realm and spiritual things are considered visible, however, to a degree by people trained or gifted (or both) to see those things via their spirit.
This is circular logic: "spiritual" describes things that can be "seen" by "spirits." You can't define a word by using another form of that word in the definition.
randman writes:
3. The biblical concept, imo, of spiritual is something that is intimately connected to, interwined with and part of the universe, not something strictly absent from our world, but part of it.
A lot of things are part of the universe. In fact, everything we know about is part of the universe. This also doesn't distinguish "spiritual" from "physical." Hydrogen is intimately connected to the universe...
randman writes:
4. The idea of spiritual in terms of the universe is that what is spiritual gives rise to and forms the material world. Material existence is sort of subset of spiritual reality. Material things therefore don't self-exist but only exist due to the reality of spiritual world sustaining and giving rise to the physical world. In that sense, from a spiritual perspective, the universe is not fundamentally and in reality a material thing. What is material about the world is secondary or derived quality.
So, if cosmologists ever find a theory for before T=0^-43, do they have to accept it as "spiritual"?
randman writes:
5. If we are talking about the difference between spiritual and material, we need to discuss these terms as they would be understood pre-modern science since that's more the origin of those terms. Rightly understood in modern terms, spiritual is a mere description of the universe. In other words, material are things that are visible, physical, etc,....whereas spiritual is also considered within the realm of human experience and the universe, but are qualitatively different.
Different, how? I don't think you're actually saying anything with this one.
randman writes:
6. There are rules and principles governing spiritual things and the spiritual world, but these rules can appear to defy "the laws" of science based on older science at least. For example, through spiritual principles something like a miracle can happen. I would submit, however, that no real law is broken just a statistical likelihood of something never occuring.
So, if no law is broken, then what happens is fully explanable by physical laws--doesn't this make such an occurrence "physical?" What are the rules governing spirits? Without knowing them, how could you distinguish spiritual phenomena from physical phenomena?
Is this saying that, anytime something improbable happens (even if it is well within the range of error of physical laws), it was because of something "spiritual?" Flipping "tails" seven times in a row is then a spiritual experience?
randman writes:
7. I will add spiritual things have their own energy, layman's terms, and so can have real world effects, but since they do not consist of matter, they probably don't have energy as defined by physics.
But, if they don't have energy-as-defined-by-physics, how do they have "real-world effects?" In the "real world," energy-as-defined-by-physics seems to be a prerequisite for anything to happen.
We could test this notion, in conjunction with your #3 and #4: if any phenomenon were to be found that proceeds without the input of "physical energy," we could therefore attribute it to "spiritual energy," which is fundamentally different, right? Additionally, if the "spiritual" indeed gives rise to and powers the "material" with non-energy, shouldn't we see natural processes happening in the absence of "real" energy input?
randman writes:
8. The most basic spiritual thing I would talk about is the Logos and spiritual realm creating or giving rise to everything in existence. I think there is a ton of evidence for it, in fact.
Translation: order in the universe arises from spirituality? See #7.
------
I think my conclusion from all of this is that nothing has really been defined by this post, and we still don't know what should be considered "spiritual" and "material." I'm a little confused by this, because, as a Christian, I'd like to know more about spiritual stuff, but nobody will define it.
Given the vacuous definition of "spiritual," I don't think it's fair to expect scientists (who thrive completely on "definitions") to incorporate this concept into their studies. How is it such a big wonder that scientists don't want to study something that they can't see, that follows rules nobody seems to know, doesn't statistically conflict with physical laws, and doesn't have any energy that we can recognize as such (despite it's being an intimate, integral part of the universe)? Maybe we are just being too close-minded and prejudiced against such things?
Why can't theists just let us first deal with things we actually have a change of figuring out?
There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from
Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams
™ Version 4.2
