Religious belief drops

Quote: DoubleGold

There's a difference in "knowing" and presenting scientific proof of "knowing".

The first case involves a human spirit (wisdom, intuition, etc.) and the second case a soul (mind).


For example, a child of a living mother goes out with a friend in the friend's car.

The child and the friend get in a car crash.

The mother instantly "knows" something is wrong.

But her mind doesn't "know" until she is informed.

This is why having this conversation is pointless. I would first have to accept that there is a God before I can get to the existence of a, 'Spirit,' or a, 'Soul,' which are theological constructs. There are a few theological constructs specific to Christianity, so then I'd have to posit that Christianity is correct.

Furthermore, on the subject of hypothetical, 'God,' the existence of something that created the Universe doesn't necessarily require that the thing that created it give us a, 'Spirit,' or, 'Soul.' It also wouldn't strictly require that 'we' go anywhere after we die.

Your example is nonsensical and meaningless. People get feelings of foreboding that prove unfounded, as well.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Knowing" and "proving" are different indeed.

Within 48 hours the cops knew who pulled the Lufthansa heist. They never proved it in court.

I once had an employee kept writing sarcastic notes on the whiteboard about pay rates. I told him not to think I did not know he was the one doing it. Even though I never saw him to "prove" it I knew it.

No, they aren't always different.

I agree that a person can, 'Know,' something without being able to prove it, but that knowledge would refer to an event that they experienced and cannot prove happened. For example, someone could know that they were attacked, in some way, but be unable to prove it.

Anyway, that's totally different from an out of body experience, or the like. For one thing, we know there are people who have been attacked. The underlying concept that people can be attacked has been demonstrated and proven, repeatedly. You knew that there were messages on the whiteboard because the messages existed and could be pointed to and demonstrated.

There has been no proof or demonstration of these out of body concepts or experiences. Only anecdotes, which I assume are mainly, if not entirely, from liars and the truly delusional.

Quote: Mission146

This is why having this conversation is pointless. I would first have to accept that there is a God before I can get to the existence of a, 'Spirit,' or a, 'Soul,' which are theological constructs. There are a few theological constructs specific to Christianity, so then I'd have to posit that Christianity is correct.

Furthermore, on the subject of hypothetical, 'God,' the existence of something that created the Universe doesn't necessarily require that the thing that created it give us a, 'Spirit,' or, 'Soul.' It also wouldn't strictly require that 'we' go anywhere after we die.

Your example is nonsensical and meaningless. People get feelings of foreboding that prove unfounded, as well.

The terminology could be anything chosen.

I use them to communicate.




I think a person can deny God and learn how a human being operates.

For example, an atheist can have a spiritual awakening.

They're features of being human.

Anyone can learn it.




An average person thinks the soul and human spirit are one part of us, as in "knowing".

I am showing they are separate.

I don't agree that some of the words you are using convey anything that actually exists. I have no desire to discuss metaphysics.

Quote: Mission146

I don't agree that some of the words you are using convey anything that actually exists. I have no desire to discuss metaphysics.

I probably would have avoided it too if I thought I could.

Quote: Mission146

No, they aren't always different.

They are very often different. This is a general conversation between intelligent people. There is no need to say "always" or "sometimes" as we should both be able to understand this.

Quote: AZDuffman

They are very often different. This is a general conversation between intelligent people. There is no need to say "always" or "sometimes" as we should both be able to understand this.

I don't assume that anyone gets the meaning of what I have to say. That's why I endeavor to be specific.

I was watching this movie the other night with Jason Stratham in it (see below).


Jason's character had a tendency to take a hit in blackjack with a high count when the dealer was showing strength.

But before he decided whether to take a hit or not, he would concentrate on the next card for a lengthy time.

He would be like in a trance.

He didn't "know" what the card was and the stakes were high.

-----------------------------

Wild Card

2015 R 1h 32m

When a Las Vegas bodyguard with lethal skills and a gambling problem gets in trouble with the mob, he has one last play...and it's all or nothing.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2231253

-----------------------------

So the movie reminded me of "knowing".

The mind cannot "know" certain things (scientific proof of "knowing").

It is finite.

In other words, no one "knows" the future using the mind only.

But there are other ways to "know" things not using the mind.

Quote: Mission146

I agree that a person can, 'Know,' something without being able to prove it, but that knowledge would refer to an event that they experienced and cannot prove happened. For example, someone could know that they were attacked, in some way, but be unable to prove it.

I know this is a little esoteric, but I believe that we can not know anything until we know everything. Everything that we claim to know could be proven wrong by something that we haven't discovered yet.

Quote: DRich

I know this is a little esoteric, but I believe that we can not know anything until we know everything. Everything that we claim to know could be proven wrong by something that we haven't discovered yet.

It depends on the topic being discussed.

For example, if I say, "I am eating a yellow pepper as I type this," the only way for my knowledge of that to be proven wrong would be to either change the definition(s) of what, "Eating," or, "Yellow pepper," is/are.

That might be too in line with the Wittgenstein language theory for your liking; I don't know. The theory suggests that both:

A.) There must be a commonality of language and definitions for communication to be meaningful in the first place.

B.) The only meaningful communication comes when we are making statements of fact.

If you combine those two things, then I know that I just finished eating a yellow pepper. The only way my statement becomes false is if you change the definitions of any of the words used, but if you did, we'd no longer have a commonality of language.