Before my birth was death, but now I am alive. Does that suggest life after death is possible (I mean rebirth cycles)

[rootseeker]

I have little understanding of an atheist perspective of the universe.

Let us see if I can help you out here.

A so-called "atheist" either BELIEVES that there is NO God or that there is NO God existing, in the Universe, or DISBELIEVES that God exists, in the Universe. 'This' more or less is the whole perspective on an "atheist".

Does this give you more understanding here?

That is my current understanding on atheism, but I do not understand an atheist perspective on existence itself and personhood. Perhaps such a perspective could be one in which life being a pure illusion of random chance, and perhaps some atheists believe it could pop out of existence entirely at any point just as casually as it popped in? I would go on but I don't want to go too far off topic as atheistic world views are an expansive topic. I suppose the three main perspectives on rebirth would be an atheistic (as specific non-existence of God) view, a pantheistic view, and a monotheistic view.

It makes more sense for God to form abstractions of discrete life to me than for life to be purely an illusion or projection or some such entity of physics.

Okay. But 'what' is 'God', EXACTLY?

God is the person at the root universe of our world (Earth and it's great beyond) that spawned this one as the intelligent designer. I don't know enough about God to define God exactly. Its a problem leading me to hesitate to use the word at times, but it conveys enough meaning that I do anyways.

Without a soul I don't see how one could consider a living person to be reborn.

'What' is 'a soul', EXACTLY?

A soul is an extension of a person on a deeper/higher or hidden dimension. A soul is an encapsulation of a person, most often expected to be capable of surviving after death, with information being added based on the life of the person being encapsulated. So this would be an entity that holds information about a person's life or lives such as personal memories, and external judgments regarding the person.

A soul enables rebirth as the information of a person as their "essence" is transferred to an encapsulated unit, and that information is then used as the basis to form another person. In some eastern philosophy, there is a root personality that develops using the lessons learned from the previous life, and those lessons carry on as the soul makes decisions about subsequent lives. In some western philosophy, the soul renders a new instance of the person in another realm and is then metaphorically speaking crystallized into full being, possibly including experience of eternal joy, or being destroyed in a "lake of fire".

A soul is the only method I'm aware of in which one person can live multiple lives, though I believe pantheists may have additional ideas. I do recognize the paradoxical definitions you are pointing out in that in a sense it is not the same person. One could define a soul to be an organization of multiple different people sharing a common essential connective part, or one person as the soul itself having multiple personalities. My current intuition is to consider it as one soul having multiple personalities, or in other words as one soul being a root person that can be reborn to a new body.

[Age]

I have little understanding of an atheist perspective of the universe.

Let us see if I can help you out here.

A so-called "atheist" either BELIEVES that there is NO God or that there is NO God existing, in the Universe, or DISBELIEVES that God exists, in the Universe. 'This' more or less is the whole perspective on an "atheist".

Does this give you more understanding here?

That is my current understanding on atheism, but I do not understand an atheist perspective on existence itself and personhood.

And, EXACTLY like a so-called "atheist" does NOT understand a so-called "theist's" perspective on 'existence', itself, and so-called 'personhood'. But 'this' is just BECAUSE the BELIEF/S of BOTH the "atheist" AND the "theist" IS STOPPING and PREVENTING "each of you" FROM SEEING and UNDERSTANDING "each other", AND what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

Perhaps such a perspective could be one in which life being a pure illusion of random chance, and perhaps some atheists believe it could pop out of existence entirely at any point just as casually as it popped in? I would go on but I don't want to go too far off topic as atheistic world views are an expansive topic.

But, "theist's" views, to you, ARE NOT, right?

I suppose the three main perspectives on rebirth would be an atheistic (as specific non-existence of God) view, a pantheistic view, and a monotheistic view.

Of which ALL of 'these' ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IRREFUTABLY True AND Right. So, continually LOOKING AT ANY of 'them' is just ANOTHER WASTE of 'one's time AND energy'.

It makes more sense for God to form abstractions of discrete life to me than for life to be purely an illusion or projection or some such entity of physics.

Okay. But 'what' is 'God', EXACTLY?

God is the person at the root universe of our world (Earth and it's great beyond) that spawned this one as the intelligent designer.

Here we have ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'God', Itself, IS A 'person'. Talk about some 'thing' that is OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOT True, NOT Right, AND NOT Correct.

I don't know enough about God to define God exactly.

WELL I suggest 'you' DO, BEFORE 'you' make ANY CLAIMS, especially like the one that you just did.

Its a problem leading me to hesitate to use the word at times, but it conveys enough meaning that I do anyways.

Talk about a PRIME example of 'TRYING TO' "justify" one's OWN Wrong and Incorrect behaving.

Without a soul I don't see how one could consider a living person to be reborn.

'What' is 'a soul', EXACTLY?

A soul is an extension of a person on a deeper/higher or hidden dimension.

So, to 'you', "rootseeker", a 'soul' is an extension of even 'the person' God, Itself, and the 'soul' is even on A 'deeper', 'higher', or 'hidden dimension' than God, Itself.

Could 'you' be CONFUSED or Wrong in ANY way here?

Would you be SURPRISED if I INFORMED 'you' that 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here?

A soul is an encapsulation of a person, most often expected to be capable of surviving after death, with information being added based on the life of the person being encapsulated. So this would be an entity that holds information about a person's life or lives such as personal memories, and external judgments regarding the person.

Is 'this' REALLY what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, TO 'you'?

A soul enables rebirth as the information of a person as their "essence" is transferred to an encapsulated unit, and that information is then used as the basis to form another person. In some eastern philosophy, there is a root personality that develops using the lessons learned from the previous life, and those lessons carry on as the soul makes decisions about subsequent lives. In some western philosophy, the soul renders a new instance of the person in another realm and is then metaphorically speaking crystallized into full being, possibly including experience of eternal joy, or being destroyed in a "lake of fire".

Although there might be TINY or MINUSCULE FRAGMENTS of 'truth' in 'this' here, more or less ALL of 'this' is just TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

A soul is the only method I'm aware of in which one person can live multiple lives, though I believe pantheists may have additional ideas.

I had NOT heard before that a 'soul' IS a 'method'.

I do recognize the paradoxical definitions you are pointing out in that in a sense it is not the same person. One could define a soul to be an organization of multiple different people sharing a common essential connective part, or one person as the soul itself having multiple personalities.

And, absolutely ANY one could define the word 'soul' in absolutely countless OTHER ways, as well AND also.

My current intuition is to consider it as one soul having multiple personalities, or in other words as one soul being a root person that can be reborn to a new body.

However, and CONTRADICTORY, 'you' ALSO consider or BELIEVE a 'soul' to be an EXTENSION of a 'person', and thus NOT a 'root person'.

[rootseeker]

Let us see if I can help you out here.

A so-called "atheist" either BELIEVES that there is NO God or that there is NO God existing, in the Universe, or DISBELIEVES that God exists, in the Universe. 'This' more or less is the whole perspective on an "atheist".

Does this give you more understanding here?

That is my current understanding on atheism, but I do not understand an atheist perspective on existence itself and personhood.

And, EXACTLY like a so-called "atheist" does NOT understand a so-called "theist's" perspective on 'existence', itself, and so-called 'personhood'. But 'this' is just BECAUSE the BELIEF/S of BOTH the "atheist" AND the "theist" IS STOPPING and PREVENTING "each of you" FROM SEEING and UNDERSTANDING "each other", AND what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

Perhaps such a perspective could be one in which life being a pure illusion of random chance, and perhaps some atheists believe it could pop out of existence entirely at any point just as casually as it popped in? I would go on but I don't want to go too far off topic as atheistic world views are an expansive topic.

But, "theist's" views, to you, ARE NOT, right?

I suppose the three main perspectives on rebirth would be an atheistic (as specific non-existence of God) view, a pantheistic view, and a monotheistic view.

Of which ALL of 'these' ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IRREFUTABLY True AND Right. So, continually LOOKING AT ANY of 'them' is just ANOTHER WASTE of 'one's time AND energy'.

Okay. But 'what' is 'God', EXACTLY?

God is the person at the root universe of our world (Earth and it's great beyond) that spawned this one as the intelligent designer.

Here we have ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'God', Itself, IS A 'person'. Talk about some 'thing' that is OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOT True, NOT Right, AND NOT Correct.

I don't know enough about God to define God exactly.

WELL I suggest 'you' DO, BEFORE 'you' make ANY CLAIMS, especially like the one that you just did.

Its a problem leading me to hesitate to use the word at times, but it conveys enough meaning that I do anyways.

Talk about a PRIME example of 'TRYING TO' "justify" one's OWN Wrong and Incorrect behaving.

'What' is 'a soul', EXACTLY?

A soul is an extension of a person on a deeper/higher or hidden dimension.

So, to 'you', "rootseeker", a 'soul' is an extension of even 'the person' God, Itself, and the 'soul' is even on A 'deeper', 'higher', or 'hidden dimension' than God, Itself.

Could 'you' be CONFUSED or Wrong in ANY way here?

Would you be SURPRISED if I INFORMED 'you' that 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here?

A soul is an encapsulation of a person, most often expected to be capable of surviving after death, with information being added based on the life of the person being encapsulated. So this would be an entity that holds information about a person's life or lives such as personal memories, and external judgments regarding the person.

Is 'this' REALLY what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, TO 'you'?

A soul enables rebirth as the information of a person as their "essence" is transferred to an encapsulated unit, and that information is then used as the basis to form another person. In some eastern philosophy, there is a root personality that develops using the lessons learned from the previous life, and those lessons carry on as the soul makes decisions about subsequent lives. In some western philosophy, the soul renders a new instance of the person in another realm and is then metaphorically speaking crystallized into full being, possibly including experience of eternal joy, or being destroyed in a "lake of fire".

Although there might be TINY or MINUSCULE FRAGMENTS of 'truth' in 'this' here, more or less ALL of 'this' is just TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

A soul is the only method I'm aware of in which one person can live multiple lives, though I believe pantheists may have additional ideas.

I had NOT heard before that a 'soul' IS a 'method'.

I do recognize the paradoxical definitions you are pointing out in that in a sense it is not the same person. One could define a soul to be an organization of multiple different people sharing a common essential connective part, or one person as the soul itself having multiple personalities.

And, absolutely ANY one could define the word 'soul' in absolutely countless OTHER ways, as well AND also.

My current intuition is to consider it as one soul having multiple personalities, or in other words as one soul being a root person that can be reborn to a new body.

However, and CONTRADICTORY, 'you' ALSO consider or BELIEVE a 'soul' to be an EXTENSION of a 'person', and thus NOT a 'root person'.

Atheists can learn the theistic perspective of existence and vice versa. Its just a matter of taking the time to explore the topics. Both theistic and atheistic views are expansive. Topics connected to spirituality and God are low-information domain topics. Just because there are topics of low information that are not based in irrefutable truth doesn't make them a waste of time at all. Doctors make health recommendations about cancer treatment without irrefutable truth of the future outcome. Lawyers make decisions to take a case even on little to no information let alone an irrefutable truth. Business people make investments based on extremely loose estimations without having irrefutable truth.

You have claimed that God isn't a person. What is God then? Do I need to know everything there to know about every topic I make claims about, as absolute irrefutable truth, and if not, what topics does this standard apply to? All low-domain topics, just those that are spiritually connected, or some other set? Its good to have the absolute irrefutable truth about a topic, but until then I am happy with an educated guess, if that is all I can get.

I'm not trying to suggest any personal definition of soul. I'm summarizing the features of a soul as I have heard the term used by others over the experience of my life. A dictionary isn't supposed to tell the readers what they want a word to mean or what a word means to them, it is supposed to convey the meaning(s) of the word as used.

A soul is the encapsulation a person in a way that they may exist in another dimension, or a dimension hidden to humans. An analog of a soul is a video game avatar. The human body acts as the soul, while the avatar acts as an extension of the soul, as a person in another dimension, as the video game dimension. If the avatar dies within the video game, the soul remains alive to be reborn in a new life such as by restarting the game.

The soul is the root person when it has the ability to survive death of a connected body. I was using the term "extension" differently than you are interpreting. A person is an extension of a soul, but by your implied definition of "extension" a soul is not an extension of a person. As with almost all definitions I've ever written, this definition is a summary as an approximation the uses of the word "soul" I have come across. I don't claim any absolute irrefutable truth regarding any human soul.

[Age]

That is my current understanding on atheism, but I do not understand an atheist perspective on existence itself and personhood.

And, EXACTLY like a so-called "atheist" does NOT understand a so-called "theist's" perspective on 'existence', itself, and so-called 'personhood'. But 'this' is just BECAUSE the BELIEF/S of BOTH the "atheist" AND the "theist" IS STOPPING and PREVENTING "each of you" FROM SEEING and UNDERSTANDING "each other", AND what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

Perhaps such a perspective could be one in which life being a pure illusion of random chance, and perhaps some atheists believe it could pop out of existence entirely at any point just as casually as it popped in? I would go on but I don't want to go too far off topic as atheistic world views are an expansive topic.

But, "theist's" views, to you, ARE NOT, right?

I suppose the three main perspectives on rebirth would be an atheistic (as specific non-existence of God) view, a pantheistic view, and a monotheistic view.

Of which ALL of 'these' ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IRREFUTABLY True AND Right. So, continually LOOKING AT ANY of 'them' is just ANOTHER WASTE of 'one's time AND energy'.

God is the person at the root universe of our world (Earth and it's great beyond) that spawned this one as the intelligent designer.

Here we have ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'God', Itself, IS A 'person'. Talk about some 'thing' that is OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOT True, NOT Right, AND NOT Correct.

I don't know enough about God to define God exactly.

WELL I suggest 'you' DO, BEFORE 'you' make ANY CLAIMS, especially like the one that you just did.

Its a problem leading me to hesitate to use the word at times, but it conveys enough meaning that I do anyways.

Talk about a PRIME example of 'TRYING TO' "justify" one's OWN Wrong and Incorrect behaving.

A soul is an extension of a person on a deeper/higher or hidden dimension.

So, to 'you', "rootseeker", a 'soul' is an extension of even 'the person' God, Itself, and the 'soul' is even on A 'deeper', 'higher', or 'hidden dimension' than God, Itself.

Could 'you' be CONFUSED or Wrong in ANY way here?

Would you be SURPRISED if I INFORMED 'you' that 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here?

A soul is an encapsulation of a person, most often expected to be capable of surviving after death, with information being added based on the life of the person being encapsulated. So this would be an entity that holds information about a person's life or lives such as personal memories, and external judgments regarding the person.

Is 'this' REALLY what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, TO 'you'?

A soul enables rebirth as the information of a person as their "essence" is transferred to an encapsulated unit, and that information is then used as the basis to form another person. In some eastern philosophy, there is a root personality that develops using the lessons learned from the previous life, and those lessons carry on as the soul makes decisions about subsequent lives. In some western philosophy, the soul renders a new instance of the person in another realm and is then metaphorically speaking crystallized into full being, possibly including experience of eternal joy, or being destroyed in a "lake of fire".

Although there might be TINY or MINUSCULE FRAGMENTS of 'truth' in 'this' here, more or less ALL of 'this' is just TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

A soul is the only method I'm aware of in which one person can live multiple lives, though I believe pantheists may have additional ideas.

I had NOT heard before that a 'soul' IS a 'method'.

I do recognize the paradoxical definitions you are pointing out in that in a sense it is not the same person. One could define a soul to be an organization of multiple different people sharing a common essential connective part, or one person as the soul itself having multiple personalities.

And, absolutely ANY one could define the word 'soul' in absolutely countless OTHER ways, as well AND also.

My current intuition is to consider it as one soul having multiple personalities, or in other words as one soul being a root person that can be reborn to a new body.

However, and CONTRADICTORY, 'you' ALSO consider or BELIEVE a 'soul' to be an EXTENSION of a 'person', and thus NOT a 'root person'.

Atheists can learn the theistic perspective of existence and vice versa. Its just a matter of taking the time to explore the topics. Both theistic and atheistic views are expansive.

NOT REALLY. One BELIEVES God EXIST, while the other DOES NOT, and 'that' IS about 'it', in a nutshell as some might say.

Topics connected to spirituality and God are low-information domain topics.

ONLY IF you are MAKING 'them' to be.

Just because there are topics of low information that are not based in irrefutable truth doesn't make them a waste of time at all.

But ALL 'topics' can be based IN or ON IRREFUTABLE Truth.

WHY would ANY one ASSUME otherwise?

Doctors make health recommendations about cancer treatment without irrefutable truth of the future outcome.

So what?

And IS 'this' AN IRREFUTABLE Truth?

Lawyers make decisions to take a case even on little to no information let alone an irrefutable truth.

AGAIN, SO WHAT?

'This' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what WAS being talked about and discussed.

Business people make investments based on extremely loose estimations without having irrefutable truth.

LOL so-called "business people" make investments that 'money' is some sort of NEEDED 'thing', in Life.

MANY upon MANY human beings MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. But, SO WHAT?

What IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True CAN BE KNOWN, in regards to MANY, MANY 'things', which 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, ASSUME and PRESUME can NOT BE KNOWN.

BUT, AGAIN, SO WHAT?

You have claimed that God isn't a person. What is God then?

In the visible sense: The Universe, Itself.

In the invisible sense: The Mind, Itself.

Do I need to know everything there to know about every topic I make claims about, as absolute irrefutable truth,

If you WANT TO CLAIM that you KNOW some 'thing', then it would be POLITE, and RIGHT, to ACTUALLY KNOW what you ARE CLAIMING. Because if you do NOT, then you do NOT KNOW, and you are ONLY PRESUMING or just GUESSING.

and if not, what topics does this standard apply to?

But if you WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, then the ANSWER IS 'Yes'. So what you SAID and WROTE here IS MOOT.

All low-domain topics,

What ARE so-called 'low-domain topics'?

What ARE so-called 'high-domain topics'? And,

What ARE so-called 'middle-, or medium-, domain topics'?

just those that are spiritually connected, or some other set?

NONE. Because MY ANSWER WAS, 'Yes'.

Its good to have the absolute irrefutable truth about a topic, but until then I am happy with an educated guess, if that is all I can get.

LOL WHY did you USE the 'can' word here?

you SPEAK and WRITE as though you ALREADY BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW that you 'can' ONLY get so much knowledge, or so much information.

I'm not trying to suggest any personal definition of soul.

GREAT. Because the 'personal definition' of the word 'soul' that you WERE USING BEFORE was in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of what you had PREVIOUSLY SAID and CLAIMED.

I'm summarizing the features of a soul as I have heard the term used by others over the experience of my life.

But did you REALLY NOT NOTICE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION that you WERE PRESENTING above here?

A dictionary isn't supposed to tell the readers what they want a word to mean or what a word means to them, it is supposed to convey the meaning(s) of the word as used.

Okay. But is this YOUR OWN 'personal view, or definition' OF 'a dictionary'?

And, what IS the DIFFERENCE between, 'How a word IS USED', and, 'What a word MEANS'?

Surely, 'How a word IS USED would have to ALIGN WITH what that word MEANS, correct?'

A soul is the encapsulation a person in a way that they may exist in another dimension, or a dimension hidden to humans.

BUT when one KNOWS, FOR SURE, what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, then 'your' CLAIM ABOUT being 'hidden' TO 'you', human beings, goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW as some might say, right?

Also, SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' is the 'encapsulation of a person', IN A WAY that they may exist in another dimension, IS about AS USELESS as SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' COULD be REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. Which is about more or less EXACTLY what you ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here.

An analog of a soul is a video game avatar. The human body acts as the soul, while the avatar acts as an extension of the soul, as a person in another dimension, as the video game dimension. If the avatar dies within the video game, the soul remains alive to be reborn in a new life such as by restarting the game.

Are you AWARE that what ACTUALLY happens WITHIN human created GAMES IS DIFFERENT FROM what ACTUALLY HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF 'those GAMES'?

The soul is the root person when it has the ability to survive death of a connected body.

But 'the soul' IS NOT some so-called 'root person'. What the ACTUAL 'person' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root person'. Just like what the ACTUAL 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root soul'.

I was using the term "extension" differently than you are interpreting.

HOW am 'I', SUPPOSEDLY, INTERPRETING HOW 'you' ARE USING the term 'extension'? And, HOW, EXACTLY, ARE 'you' USING the term 'extension'?

A person is an extension of a soul, but by your implied definition of "extension" a soul is not an extension of a person. As with almost all definitions I've ever written, this definition is a summary as an approximation the uses of the word "soul" I have come across. I don't claim any absolute irrefutable truth regarding any human soul.

So, WHY do you NOT JUST HOLD OFF GUESSING or PRESUMING UNTIL you DO ACTUALLY LEARN and KNOW what IS the ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth here, regarding the 'soul', among MANY OTHER 'things'?

[rootseeker]

And, EXACTLY like a so-called "atheist" does NOT understand a so-called "theist's" perspective on 'existence', itself, and so-called 'personhood'. But 'this' is just BECAUSE the BELIEF/S of BOTH the "atheist" AND the "theist" IS STOPPING and PREVENTING "each of you" FROM SEEING and UNDERSTANDING "each other", AND what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, AS WELL.


But, "theist's" views, to you, ARE NOT, right?


Of which ALL of 'these' ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IRREFUTABLY True AND Right. So, continually LOOKING AT ANY of 'them' is just ANOTHER WASTE of 'one's time AND energy'.


Here we have ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'God', Itself, IS A 'person'. Talk about some 'thing' that is OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOT True, NOT Right, AND NOT Correct.



WELL I suggest 'you' DO, BEFORE 'you' make ANY CLAIMS, especially like the one that you just did.



Talk about a PRIME example of 'TRYING TO' "justify" one's OWN Wrong and Incorrect behaving.


So, to 'you', "rootseeker", a 'soul' is an extension of even 'the person' God, Itself, and the 'soul' is even on A 'deeper', 'higher', or 'hidden dimension' than God, Itself.

Could 'you' be CONFUSED or Wrong in ANY way here?

Would you be SURPRISED if I INFORMED 'you' that 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here?



Is 'this' REALLY what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, TO 'you'?



Although there might be TINY or MINUSCULE FRAGMENTS of 'truth' in 'this' here, more or less ALL of 'this' is just TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.


I had NOT heard before that a 'soul' IS a 'method'.


And, absolutely ANY one could define the word 'soul' in absolutely countless OTHER ways, as well AND also.


However, and CONTRADICTORY, 'you' ALSO consider or BELIEVE a 'soul' to be an EXTENSION of a 'person', and thus NOT a 'root person'.

Atheists can learn the theistic perspective of existence and vice versa. Its just a matter of taking the time to explore the topics. Both theistic and atheistic views are expansive.

NOT REALLY. One BELIEVES God EXIST, while the other DOES NOT, and 'that' IS about 'it', in a nutshell as some might say.

Topics connected to spirituality and God are low-information domain topics.

ONLY IF you are MAKING 'them' to be.

Just because there are topics of low information that are not based in irrefutable truth doesn't make them a waste of time at all.

But ALL 'topics' can be based IN or ON IRREFUTABLE Truth.

WHY would ANY one ASSUME otherwise?

Doctors make health recommendations about cancer treatment without irrefutable truth of the future outcome.

So what?

And IS 'this' AN IRREFUTABLE Truth?

Lawyers make decisions to take a case even on little to no information let alone an irrefutable truth.

AGAIN, SO WHAT?

'This' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what WAS being talked about and discussed.

Business people make investments based on extremely loose estimations without having irrefutable truth.

LOL so-called "business people" make investments that 'money' is some sort of NEEDED 'thing', in Life.

MANY upon MANY human beings MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. But, SO WHAT?

What IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True CAN BE KNOWN, in regards to MANY, MANY 'things', which 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, ASSUME and PRESUME can NOT BE KNOWN.

BUT, AGAIN, SO WHAT?

You have claimed that God isn't a person. What is God then?

In the visible sense: The Universe, Itself.

In the invisible sense: The Mind, Itself.

Do I need to know everything there to know about every topic I make claims about, as absolute irrefutable truth,

If you WANT TO CLAIM that you KNOW some 'thing', then it would be POLITE, and RIGHT, to ACTUALLY KNOW what you ARE CLAIMING. Because if you do NOT, then you do NOT KNOW, and you are ONLY PRESUMING or just GUESSING.

and if not, what topics does this standard apply to?

But if you WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, then the ANSWER IS 'Yes'. So what you SAID and WROTE here IS MOOT.

All low-domain topics,

What ARE so-called 'low-domain topics'?

What ARE so-called 'high-domain topics'? And,

What ARE so-called 'middle-, or medium-, domain topics'?

just those that are spiritually connected, or some other set?

NONE. Because MY ANSWER WAS, 'Yes'.

Its good to have the absolute irrefutable truth about a topic, but until then I am happy with an educated guess, if that is all I can get.

LOL WHY did you USE the 'can' word here?

you SPEAK and WRITE as though you ALREADY BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW that you 'can' ONLY get so much knowledge, or so much information.

I'm not trying to suggest any personal definition of soul.

GREAT. Because the 'personal definition' of the word 'soul' that you WERE USING BEFORE was in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of what you had PREVIOUSLY SAID and CLAIMED.

I'm summarizing the features of a soul as I have heard the term used by others over the experience of my life.

But did you REALLY NOT NOTICE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION that you WERE PRESENTING above here?

A dictionary isn't supposed to tell the readers what they want a word to mean or what a word means to them, it is supposed to convey the meaning(s) of the word as used.

Okay. But is this YOUR OWN 'personal view, or definition' OF 'a dictionary'?

And, what IS the DIFFERENCE between, 'How a word IS USED', and, 'What a word MEANS'?

Surely, 'How a word IS USED would have to ALIGN WITH what that word MEANS, correct?'

A soul is the encapsulation a person in a way that they may exist in another dimension, or a dimension hidden to humans.

BUT when one KNOWS, FOR SURE, what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, then 'your' CLAIM ABOUT being 'hidden' TO 'you', human beings, goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW as some might say, right?

Also, SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' is the 'encapsulation of a person', IN A WAY that they may exist in another dimension, IS about AS USELESS as SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' COULD be REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. Which is about more or less EXACTLY what you ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here.

An analog of a soul is a video game avatar. The human body acts as the soul, while the avatar acts as an extension of the soul, as a person in another dimension, as the video game dimension. If the avatar dies within the video game, the soul remains alive to be reborn in a new life such as by restarting the game.

Are you AWARE that what ACTUALLY happens WITHIN human created GAMES IS DIFFERENT FROM what ACTUALLY HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF 'those GAMES'?

The soul is the root person when it has the ability to survive death of a connected body.

But 'the soul' IS NOT some so-called 'root person'. What the ACTUAL 'person' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root person'. Just like what the ACTUAL 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root soul'.

I was using the term "extension" differently than you are interpreting.

HOW am 'I', SUPPOSEDLY, INTERPRETING HOW 'you' ARE USING the term 'extension'? And, HOW, EXACTLY, ARE 'you' USING the term 'extension'?

A person is an extension of a soul, but by your implied definition of "extension" a soul is not an extension of a person. As with almost all definitions I've ever written, this definition is a summary as an approximation the uses of the word "soul" I have come across. I don't claim any absolute irrefutable truth regarding any human soul.

So, WHY do you NOT JUST HOLD OFF GUESSING or PRESUMING UNTIL you DO ACTUALLY LEARN and KNOW what IS the ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth here, regarding the 'soul', among MANY OTHER 'things'?

Low-information domain topics include dark energy physics and ancient history. Most people claim to have a low amount of information available about what happened in ancient history and what happens regarding dark energy physics. Topics considered to be mysterious are low-information domain topics.
An example of a medium-information domain topic is Earth's oceans. Most people claim some knowledge about Earth's oceans without claiming to have high knowledge about Earth's oceans. There is some information available regarding the topic like the geographic coordinates Earths Oceans, and some information that isn't available like a 1-meter sample topology of depths within those geographic coordinates.
An example of a high-information domain topic is current human parental structure. Most people claim to have a high amount of information about their current human parental structure. Most humans have a high amount of information regarding whether or not they have parents, and whether their biological parents are married, and if not whether they have any in-law or adopted parents.

Low-information domain topics are topics in which speculation, guessing, and presuming are common and to be expected, with such statements being expressions often being relative confidence of belief rather than high confidence of truth. For a low-information domain topic, I expect people to discuss their perspective with a low threshold of confidence, so those topics can be explored beginning from hypothesis, ideas, and speculation. At the other end of the spectrum however, even high-information domain topics don't consist of many claims to absolute irrefutable truth. People most often don't do the genetic testing required to prove that someone is their parent. Therefore, they are to a small degree guessing as to who their parents are. People who claim their parental structure as absolute irrefutable truth, even with genetic testing, could still be wrong, as genetic testing is not 100.000000...% accurate.

All the hypothesis of rebirth I'm familiar with are described using the word "soul". I propose that when people have used that word, what they are most often referring to is consistent with my vague description in this thread. I don't offer a more concrete definition because a detailed definition isn't agreed upon. I believe most people consider the OP to be speculation about the topic of rebirth.

Some people change their beliefs over time from atheism to theism or vice versa. I do believe such people have a good idea of both an atheist perspective and a theist perspective.

[Age]

Atheists can learn the theistic perspective of existence and vice versa. Its just a matter of taking the time to explore the topics. Both theistic and atheistic views are expansive.

NOT REALLY. One BELIEVES God EXIST, while the other DOES NOT, and 'that' IS about 'it', in a nutshell as some might say.

Topics connected to spirituality and God are low-information domain topics.

ONLY IF you are MAKING 'them' to be.

Just because there are topics of low information that are not based in irrefutable truth doesn't make them a waste of time at all.

But ALL 'topics' can be based IN or ON IRREFUTABLE Truth.

WHY would ANY one ASSUME otherwise?

Doctors make health recommendations about cancer treatment without irrefutable truth of the future outcome.

So what?

And IS 'this' AN IRREFUTABLE Truth?

Lawyers make decisions to take a case even on little to no information let alone an irrefutable truth.

AGAIN, SO WHAT?

'This' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what WAS being talked about and discussed.

Business people make investments based on extremely loose estimations without having irrefutable truth.

LOL so-called "business people" make investments that 'money' is some sort of NEEDED 'thing', in Life.

MANY upon MANY human beings MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. But, SO WHAT?

What IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True CAN BE KNOWN, in regards to MANY, MANY 'things', which 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, ASSUME and PRESUME can NOT BE KNOWN.

BUT, AGAIN, SO WHAT?

You have claimed that God isn't a person. What is God then?

In the visible sense: The Universe, Itself.

In the invisible sense: The Mind, Itself.

Do I need to know everything there to know about every topic I make claims about, as absolute irrefutable truth,

If you WANT TO CLAIM that you KNOW some 'thing', then it would be POLITE, and RIGHT, to ACTUALLY KNOW what you ARE CLAIMING. Because if you do NOT, then you do NOT KNOW, and you are ONLY PRESUMING or just GUESSING.

and if not, what topics does this standard apply to?

But if you WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, then the ANSWER IS 'Yes'. So what you SAID and WROTE here IS MOOT.

All low-domain topics,

What ARE so-called 'low-domain topics'?

What ARE so-called 'high-domain topics'? And,

What ARE so-called 'middle-, or medium-, domain topics'?

just those that are spiritually connected, or some other set?

NONE. Because MY ANSWER WAS, 'Yes'.

Its good to have the absolute irrefutable truth about a topic, but until then I am happy with an educated guess, if that is all I can get.

LOL WHY did you USE the 'can' word here?

you SPEAK and WRITE as though you ALREADY BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW that you 'can' ONLY get so much knowledge, or so much information.

I'm not trying to suggest any personal definition of soul.

GREAT. Because the 'personal definition' of the word 'soul' that you WERE USING BEFORE was in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of what you had PREVIOUSLY SAID and CLAIMED.

I'm summarizing the features of a soul as I have heard the term used by others over the experience of my life.

But did you REALLY NOT NOTICE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION that you WERE PRESENTING above here?

A dictionary isn't supposed to tell the readers what they want a word to mean or what a word means to them, it is supposed to convey the meaning(s) of the word as used.

Okay. But is this YOUR OWN 'personal view, or definition' OF 'a dictionary'?

And, what IS the DIFFERENCE between, 'How a word IS USED', and, 'What a word MEANS'?

Surely, 'How a word IS USED would have to ALIGN WITH what that word MEANS, correct?'

A soul is the encapsulation a person in a way that they may exist in another dimension, or a dimension hidden to humans.

BUT when one KNOWS, FOR SURE, what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, then 'your' CLAIM ABOUT being 'hidden' TO 'you', human beings, goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW as some might say, right?

Also, SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' is the 'encapsulation of a person', IN A WAY that they may exist in another dimension, IS about AS USELESS as SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' COULD be REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. Which is about more or less EXACTLY what you ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here.

An analog of a soul is a video game avatar. The human body acts as the soul, while the avatar acts as an extension of the soul, as a person in another dimension, as the video game dimension. If the avatar dies within the video game, the soul remains alive to be reborn in a new life such as by restarting the game.

Are you AWARE that what ACTUALLY happens WITHIN human created GAMES IS DIFFERENT FROM what ACTUALLY HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF 'those GAMES'?

The soul is the root person when it has the ability to survive death of a connected body.

But 'the soul' IS NOT some so-called 'root person'. What the ACTUAL 'person' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root person'. Just like what the ACTUAL 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root soul'.

I was using the term "extension" differently than you are interpreting.

HOW am 'I', SUPPOSEDLY, INTERPRETING HOW 'you' ARE USING the term 'extension'? And, HOW, EXACTLY, ARE 'you' USING the term 'extension'?

A person is an extension of a soul, but by your implied definition of "extension" a soul is not an extension of a person. As with almost all definitions I've ever written, this definition is a summary as an approximation the uses of the word "soul" I have come across. I don't claim any absolute irrefutable truth regarding any human soul.

So, WHY do you NOT JUST HOLD OFF GUESSING or PRESUMING UNTIL you DO ACTUALLY LEARN and KNOW what IS the ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth here, regarding the 'soul', among MANY OTHER 'things'?

Low-information domain topics include dark energy physics and ancient history.

Considering the first one is made up ON and FROM a PRESUMPTION, ALONE, there is NO wonder that there IS STILL low or even NO information regarding 'this'.

Most people claim to have a low amount of information available about what happened in ancient history and what happens regarding dark energy physics. Topics considered to be mysterious are low-information domain topics.
An example of a medium-information domain topic is Earth's oceans. Most people claim some knowledge about Earth's oceans without claiming to have high knowledge about Earth's oceans. There is some information available regarding the topic like the geographic coordinates Earths Oceans, and some information that isn't available like a 1-meter sample topology of depths within those geographic coordinates.
An example of a high-information domain topic is current human parental structure. Most people claim to have a high amount of information about their current human parental structure. Most humans have a high amount of information regarding whether or not they have parents, and whether their biological parents are married, and if not whether they have any in-law or adopted parents.

Low-information domain topics are topics in which speculation, guessing, and presuming are common and to be expected, with such statements being expressions often being relative confidence of belief rather than high confidence of truth. For a low-information domain topic, I expect people to discuss their perspective with a low threshold of confidence, so those topics can be explored beginning from hypothesis, ideas, and speculation.

But what you CONSIDER to be a so-called 'low-information domain topic' might well be FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by some "others". Or, do you NOT accept 'this'?

At the other end of the spectrum however, even high-information domain topics don't consist of many claims to absolute irrefutable truth.

So, REALLY 'they' are NOT that 'high' IN 'information'.

People most often don't do the genetic testing required to prove that someone is their parent. Therefore, they are to a small degree guessing as to who their parents are. People who claim their parental structure as absolute irrefutable truth, even with genetic testing, could still be wrong, as genetic testing is not 100.000000...% accurate.

Is 'this' an 'absolute irrefutable truth'?

All the hypothesis of rebirth I'm familiar with are described using the word "soul". I propose that when people have used that word, what they are most often referring to is consistent with my vague description in this thread.

Which 'you' ACTUALLY CONTRADICTED.

I don't offer a more concrete definition because a detailed definition isn't agreed upon. I believe most people consider the OP to be speculation about the topic of rebirth.

Okay.

Some people change their beliefs over time from atheism to theism or vice versa. I do believe such people have a good idea of both an atheist perspective and a theist perspective.

Okay.

[rootseeker]

NOT REALLY. One BELIEVES God EXIST, while the other DOES NOT, and 'that' IS about 'it', in a nutshell as some might say.


ONLY IF you are MAKING 'them' to be.



But ALL 'topics' can be based IN or ON IRREFUTABLE Truth.

WHY would ANY one ASSUME otherwise?


So what?

And IS 'this' AN IRREFUTABLE Truth?


AGAIN, SO WHAT?

'This' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what WAS being talked about and discussed.


LOL so-called "business people" make investments that 'money' is some sort of NEEDED 'thing', in Life.

MANY upon MANY human beings MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. But, SO WHAT?

What IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True CAN BE KNOWN, in regards to MANY, MANY 'things', which 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, ASSUME and PRESUME can NOT BE KNOWN.

BUT, AGAIN, SO WHAT?


In the visible sense: The Universe, Itself.

In the invisible sense: The Mind, Itself.


If you WANT TO CLAIM that you KNOW some 'thing', then it would be POLITE, and RIGHT, to ACTUALLY KNOW what you ARE CLAIMING. Because if you do NOT, then you do NOT KNOW, and you are ONLY PRESUMING or just GUESSING.



But if you WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, then the ANSWER IS 'Yes'. So what you SAID and WROTE here IS MOOT.


What ARE so-called 'low-domain topics'?

What ARE so-called 'high-domain topics'? And,

What ARE so-called 'middle-, or medium-, domain topics'?


NONE. Because MY ANSWER WAS, 'Yes'.


LOL WHY did you USE the 'can' word here?

you SPEAK and WRITE as though you ALREADY BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW that you 'can' ONLY get so much knowledge, or so much information.


GREAT. Because the 'personal definition' of the word 'soul' that you WERE USING BEFORE was in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of what you had PREVIOUSLY SAID and CLAIMED.


But did you REALLY NOT NOTICE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION that you WERE PRESENTING above here?


Okay. But is this YOUR OWN 'personal view, or definition' OF 'a dictionary'?

And, what IS the DIFFERENCE between, 'How a word IS USED', and, 'What a word MEANS'?

Surely, 'How a word IS USED would have to ALIGN WITH what that word MEANS, correct?'


BUT when one KNOWS, FOR SURE, what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, then 'your' CLAIM ABOUT being 'hidden' TO 'you', human beings, goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW as some might say, right?

Also, SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' is the 'encapsulation of a person', IN A WAY that they may exist in another dimension, IS about AS USELESS as SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' COULD be REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. Which is about more or less EXACTLY what you ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here.



Are you AWARE that what ACTUALLY happens WITHIN human created GAMES IS DIFFERENT FROM what ACTUALLY HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF 'those GAMES'?


But 'the soul' IS NOT some so-called 'root person'. What the ACTUAL 'person' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root person'. Just like what the ACTUAL 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root soul'.


HOW am 'I', SUPPOSEDLY, INTERPRETING HOW 'you' ARE USING the term 'extension'? And, HOW, EXACTLY, ARE 'you' USING the term 'extension'?


So, WHY do you NOT JUST HOLD OFF GUESSING or PRESUMING UNTIL you DO ACTUALLY LEARN and KNOW what IS the ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth here, regarding the 'soul', among MANY OTHER 'things'?

Low-information domain topics include dark energy physics and ancient history.

Considering the first one is made up ON and FROM a PRESUMPTION, ALONE, there is NO wonder that there IS STILL low or even NO information regarding 'this'.

Most people claim to have a low amount of information available about what happened in ancient history and what happens regarding dark energy physics. Topics considered to be mysterious are low-information domain topics.
An example of a medium-information domain topic is Earth's oceans. Most people claim some knowledge about Earth's oceans without claiming to have high knowledge about Earth's oceans. There is some information available regarding the topic like the geographic coordinates Earths Oceans, and some information that isn't available like a 1-meter sample topology of depths within those geographic coordinates.
An example of a high-information domain topic is current human parental structure. Most people claim to have a high amount of information about their current human parental structure. Most humans have a high amount of information regarding whether or not they have parents, and whether their biological parents are married, and if not whether they have any in-law or adopted parents.

Low-information domain topics are topics in which speculation, guessing, and presuming are common and to be expected, with such statements being expressions often being relative confidence of belief rather than high confidence of truth. For a low-information domain topic, I expect people to discuss their perspective with a low threshold of confidence, so those topics can be explored beginning from hypothesis, ideas, and speculation.

But what you CONSIDER to be a so-called 'low-information domain topic' might well be FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by some "others". Or, do you NOT accept 'this'?

At the other end of the spectrum however, even high-information domain topics don't consist of many claims to absolute irrefutable truth.

So, REALLY 'they' are NOT that 'high' IN 'information'.

People most often don't do the genetic testing required to prove that someone is their parent. Therefore, they are to a small degree guessing as to who their parents are. People who claim their parental structure as absolute irrefutable truth, even with genetic testing, could still be wrong, as genetic testing is not 100.000000...% accurate.

Is 'this' an 'absolute irrefutable truth'?

All the hypothesis of rebirth I'm familiar with are described using the word "soul". I propose that when people have used that word, what they are most often referring to is consistent with my vague description in this thread.

Which 'you' ACTUALLY CONTRADICTED.

I don't offer a more concrete definition because a detailed definition isn't agreed upon. I believe most people consider the OP to be speculation about the topic of rebirth.

Okay.

Some people change their beliefs over time from atheism to theism or vice versa. I do believe such people have a good idea of both an atheist perspective and a theist perspective.

Okay.

I do accept it is possible that rebirth may be a high-information domain topic for a few people. I avoid claiming any information I have to be absolute irrefutable truth and instead express it in terms of confidence. The statement regarding how there are people out there who could be wrong about who their parents are is one I have with a very high degree of confidence.

[Age]

Low-information domain topics include dark energy physics and ancient history.

Considering the first one is made up ON and FROM a PRESUMPTION, ALONE, there is NO wonder that there IS STILL low or even NO information regarding 'this'.

Most people claim to have a low amount of information available about what happened in ancient history and what happens regarding dark energy physics. Topics considered to be mysterious are low-information domain topics.
An example of a medium-information domain topic is Earth's oceans. Most people claim some knowledge about Earth's oceans without claiming to have high knowledge about Earth's oceans. There is some information available regarding the topic like the geographic coordinates Earths Oceans, and some information that isn't available like a 1-meter sample topology of depths within those geographic coordinates.
An example of a high-information domain topic is current human parental structure. Most people claim to have a high amount of information about their current human parental structure. Most humans have a high amount of information regarding whether or not they have parents, and whether their biological parents are married, and if not whether they have any in-law or adopted parents.

Low-information domain topics are topics in which speculation, guessing, and presuming are common and to be expected, with such statements being expressions often being relative confidence of belief rather than high confidence of truth. For a low-information domain topic, I expect people to discuss their perspective with a low threshold of confidence, so those topics can be explored beginning from hypothesis, ideas, and speculation.

But what you CONSIDER to be a so-called 'low-information domain topic' might well be FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by some "others". Or, do you NOT accept 'this'?

At the other end of the spectrum however, even high-information domain topics don't consist of many claims to absolute irrefutable truth.

So, REALLY 'they' are NOT that 'high' IN 'information'.

People most often don't do the genetic testing required to prove that someone is their parent. Therefore, they are to a small degree guessing as to who their parents are. People who claim their parental structure as absolute irrefutable truth, even with genetic testing, could still be wrong, as genetic testing is not 100.000000...% accurate.

Is 'this' an 'absolute irrefutable truth'?

All the hypothesis of rebirth I'm familiar with are described using the word "soul". I propose that when people have used that word, what they are most often referring to is consistent with my vague description in this thread.

Which 'you' ACTUALLY CONTRADICTED.

I don't offer a more concrete definition because a detailed definition isn't agreed upon. I believe most people consider the OP to be speculation about the topic of rebirth.

Okay.

Some people change their beliefs over time from atheism to theism or vice versa. I do believe such people have a good idea of both an atheist perspective and a theist perspective.

Okay.

I do accept it is possible that rebirth may be a high-information domain topic for a few people. I avoid claiming any information I have to be absolute irrefutable truth and instead express it in terms of confidence.

Okay, but once you also learn, understand, and know how to distinguish information/knowledge, which just appears to be true from what IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLY True, then you can CONFIDENTLY CLAIM the Truth of 'things'.

The statement regarding how there are people out there who could be wrong about who their parents are is one I have with a very high degree of confidence.

Okay.