I think this hits a crux. People use it in terms of the first two definitions but expect acceptance of it based on the third.

this is why I don't like the word. "it's plausible" either means it is superficially pleasing to intuition, or that it bears reasoning which matches expectation. spirituality is plausible right up until you actually understand how the real world works, and then it just isn't.

my point exactly. the use of plausible in a statistical or reasonable sense belies the very meaning when applied to "spiritual" claims, there can be no statistic or chain of reason to support it.

when it means "sounds good until you look deeper" i don't object to it at all, that's the meaning most fitting for such claims.

in this sense I can accept it, but I haven't seen that usage. personal experience is a powerful motivator. I couldn't prove to anyone on here that a squirrel just ran across my lawn, because I have only the evidence of my senses. it is plausible that it was a squirren and not a hallucination because I have no history of such hallucination.

it is when they suggest that their experiences make it plausible TO ME that I run afoul of their reasoning.

@HereticSin that sounds entirely plausible. To me.

I don't mind it when it is used that way, but I've seen a few who are using it in the reasoning/statistical sense.

that connotation is not one I made, it is built into the word. "spiritual" means having to do with a spiritual realm.

if one means aware, one uses aware, if one means appreciative, one uses appreciative. spiritual is, not always but most commonly, used to give a sense of something transcendent to the physical, which I reject based on evidence.

"just about any modern physics book" followed by a book on quantum interaction. if you mean "quantum" when you say "spiritual", I suggest you use "quantum" instead.

"higher" reality. no, not currently understood reality, no "transcendence" is implied by quantum models.

@HereticSin No matter how you label it, The reality you see before you is only a crude and symbolic representation of a higher realm. According to quantum loop theory there is no such thing as time. Space is not smooth and continuous but rather granular in nature. Particles are not things, they are field fluctuations.

It is precisely what spirituality oriented people are talking about—there is no difference. If the word “spirituality” disturbes you I’ll try to remember and say “quantum” in the future, however, time is an illusion so the meaning of “future” is uncertain.

@WilliamFleming "higher" please define that term.

"we don't understand everything, ergo spirituality". I call bullshit.

@HereticSin If you are looking at a map of Alaska, a higher realm would be Alaska itself. If I am watching a movie in a theater, a realm higher than the world of the movie would be the world outside the theater.

Reality as we perceive it is just made up and is displayed in our minds as matter moving in space and time.There’s a higher reality beyond our senses that we can’t understand except a little bit with mathematical modeling.

You can’t say much about a world that’s outside your perception, but you can marvel and wonder.

you are locked into the idea that I'm discussing sense perception. you are wrong. there is nothing "spiritual" about QM, just because we lack the tools for sophisticated measurement doesn't make it "higher" than the realm we live in, it IS the realm we live in. "there are things we can't perceive, ergo spirituality" is BS.

they couldn't perceive germs in 1300 BC, it didn't make germs "spiritual".

@HereticSin The way you are defining the word, it IS bullshit. There’s no such thing as the “supernatural” IMO. It’s not just sensory—it’s the fact that space, time, and matter as we experience them do not exist except in our imaginations.The stark facts by far out-woo the woo.

I still think however that the word “spiritual” is a good one and that most people who describe themselves as spiritual are intelligent and perceptive. In the final analysis we are abjectly ignorant when it comes to the deep questions of life.
As a person who lives in total awe and bewilderment I am not much interested in arguing over semantics.

@WilliamFleming for someone not interested in arguing over semantics, you spent a lot of time doing it. if you don't think words have meanings, more power to you, but I do.

Yes! I was going to say plausible means it passes a "gut check". But I think you've very well expressed what was behind that feeling.

I am starting to see that from many of the comments, it is possible I overreact to the word because of how many times I've seen it misused. Logically plausible and "seems plausible" are two different connotations, and my background until the last few years was pure logics, not philosophy. thanks for the input.