Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your points which looked unclear. Will go back and read the OP, and see what I can find more. Please carry on. Thanks.

"does not own some paintings" is not clear which paintings he is talking about. Paintings of Picasso? Miro? Shargal? It is because the premise said that he owns "every paintings of Rembrandts", it already implied not to include Rembrandts in the following point of "does not own some paintings". There was a clear paradox in that already.

Fake Rembrandts are also real Rembrandts? To me, it is not. If you said it is, to you, they are. But you didn't.

"Some paintings" is unclear, what it actually denotes in the statement, therefore is not meaningful.
Is fake real? Of course not. Has the speaker meant by "every Rembrandts" also to include fake Rembrandts? Not clear on that either. Therefore not a meaningful or logical statement.

A person who is in possession of all knowledge can still not know things and have false beliefs. — Bartricks

Sounds like a self-contradictory statement to me. But that is what I feel about it. Will read the OP again, and see what I can find more. Thanks.

What did I define incorrectly? Omniscient? That means all knowing, yes? What does that mean? That means possessing all knowledge, yes? — Bartricks

I am not sure where you picked up the definition. Maybe from the books, internet sites or even the Bible? But if you are philosophical, then you shouldn't accept the definition like that just because it is in the books, or someone says that it is not controversial. You have to be sceptical until it is totally clear beyond any possibility of doubt - just like Descartes had done a few hundred years ago about EVEN his own existence.

"possessing all the knowledge"? for example what? what knowledge in details?
My book has just arrived this morning, which I ordered a couple of days ago. What book is it?
Only I know. Would anyone else know about it if I had NOT told what book it is?
Would God know it? How can you prove he does?

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. That's a definition. — Bartricks

Sorry, Bartricks. I was under impression that if you begin with false definition or supposition, then you will end up with false arguments and conclusion. :) That's me trying to be philosophical :D

I feel all this is just guess work and imagination, if

1. one doesn't know and have not proved God exists.
2. doesn't know which God he is talking about.

I think so. — Bartricks

Does God exist?

I saw my father mentally deteriorating as his bodily health was failing losing memory and clarity in speech content and consciousness before his death.

I was convinced that soul or mind as we call it, is just product of the body.
As the body perishes, so does the mind.
Would the soul resurrect? If the body resurrects and recovers its health, then maybe.

So what to do? — Inyenzi

I am sure it will not continue forever. The time will come for everyone, when their memories fail, their bodies ache without reason, eyes can't see properly, and sex drive not same as 10 year ago. And then they will know and tell themselves, "well the time has come, had better slow down.". They will come down from the rope, put away the balls to the drawer, and go for a walk. I am sure that is life.

Fair enough. I myself was totally oblivious on Freud for years since I read his book on Dreams. But this thread made me to add Freud in the Re-reading list.

I also think that Freud is the one of the great thinker and philosopher in history with all the reasons already mentioned here. But he is neglected and forgotten largely by the modern contemporary people for the reason that he emphasises on sexuality for the important factors in explanation on human life and actions. People tend to look down sexuality or any talk about sexuality as cheap and low from the cultural, political, religious, educational and moral shackles on their lives. It is kind a chip on the shoulder of the people.

Jesus went and spent 40 days, and Zarathustra 10 years in the wilderness. Buddha had given up his royal life and family, and went up to the mountain for meditation.

For peace and quiet of meditation and cleansing mind, maybe it is good to have no one around you apart from you for a while. Of course, they came down to the towns when they found the answers to the mystery of life and taught and enlightened the people. (Not sure about Mr Buddha, what he had done or happened since gone up to the mountain.) Anyhow, not exactly meaningless exercises I would reckon.

Death / thought and belief about death, is the source of Nihilism, Pessimism and Existentialism.
It is one of the mysterious events in life. No one seems wanting to face or talk about it. Only Philosophy can deal with it logically and intellectually. The upshot seems, ignore it, accept it or deny or try to avoid it. It is a personal choice.

Do we really fear death? Yes, we do. But they soon realise that fear will not deal with the problem, hence they take the philosophical stance or turn to religion.

But most of them seem just taken away into the dark abyss of death, when it strikes, without even the perceptual and emotional embattling with the fear or knowledge.

That's Love Island, not science ;) — Kenosha Kid

Never watched it in my life. Obviously you have been. :)

"Philosophy is thinking about thinking." - A. Quinton ??

I feel that the recent development of Science drives people less intelligent and less creative due to their increasing hyper-dependency on the tech gadgets and devices based on A.I. Some say it could the path to the beginning of the end of human civilization.

Nature can mean so many different entities, and value? On what respect and aspect? Monetary value? Ethical? Aesthetic? Legal? Moral? Religious? Political? ...... etc etc.

It would help, if you could define what you mean by nature.

It would depend on one's mind set, religion, culture and his beliefs and view on the nature.
I don't believe personally nature itself has souls, thoughts or emotions to possess any type or kind of value.

Time doesn't exist. What we call time is a contract between all humans and its societies in this world. It is only memories we all have about past events, and people seem confuse the past memories as time. There is only intervals, but nothing flows or moves. It is just illusion of memories and imagination.

For instance, a society or country can make new time contract that from tomorrow, it will be year 0, and a day will be 40 hours, and a month will be 100 days, and run it like that. I think historically Cambodia had done it sometime in 1970s. And initially people will get confused or feel chaos on the time perception, but they will get used to it.

So, yes time travel is possible, but only in memories and imaginations and the movies. No, it is not possible in real life.

What we have is eternal present called "Now", from which no existence can escape until their consciousness fades away.

Right. So you don't know who Stevenson is, you don't know that psychiatry and psychology are two different things, you don't know that psychiatry uses scientific and empirical methods, but your "common sense" tells you that Stevenson was a "fortune teller".

You must have a highly unusual common sense then. A bit too unusual to believe it, to be honest. — Apollodorus

I am not interested in Psychology or Psychiatry. I don't think I need to know who the Stevenson is, what his methods of researches were, to be able to tell what is genuine scientific truths, or religious type of claims on the minds and consciousness.

I don't think my common sense is unusual. No I don't agree with you.

Stevenson was a respected professor of psychiatry. His work was favorably reviewed in Scientific American. On what basis are you saying he was not a scientist?
Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia — Apollodorus

I don't know who he is, but you should also bear in mind that there is a big debate, whether psychology can be classed as a science. You should read some Philosophy of Science books.

p.s. : Don't take everything as truths what Wikipeedia says, or anything in internet. First read the classics, then use your common sense and logic, rather than relying on the information from the internet.

But your common sense told you they were not scientists. So you are claiming that your common sense enables you to tell what is scientific and what is not. — Apollodorus

I think I said it in the beginning. You seem replying even without reading the posts.
Scientists use facts, concrete evidences and proofs for their truths.
Common sense should tell you that fortune tellers are not scientists.

So, having common sense makes you a scientist? — Apollodorus

Never said I was a scientist. They were calling themselves scientists.

Then how do you know that the people you saw in youtube were not scientists? — Apollodorus

Common sense.

Then why you call yourself a scientist? — Corvus

I don't think I have ever did. I am only a philosophy reader.
You are still too hyper imaginative.

You were probably mixing with the wrong crowd in that case. As for myself, I have seen some scientists calling themselves scientists. — Apollodorus

I have see them on youtube. You seem have wild, dark and unhealthy imagination.
Without facts, concrete evidence and proof, no one should call themselves scientist.
Well, the pseudo scientists, esoteric people and the mystics could, and would, but no one would take them seriously unless they are the same crowd.

If Stevenson and others apply scientific methods in their research then it can't be dismissed as "mysticism". In any case, their findings can't be rejected before even looking at them. To do so would be unscientific. — Apollodorus

Aha, now this sounds like a religion :D a cult. In fact, in the past, I have seen some esoteric and magical secret society people call themselves as scientists too. :)

It may sound like that to you. Stevenson and others like him regard themselves as scientists. — Apollodorus

But scientific knowledge needs concrete evidence and proof on their theories.

You don't know that it doesn't make contact, communicate and interact. For example, inspiration, artistic, scientific, or religious, may partly come from disembodied souls. — Apollodorus

That sounds like they were having some sort of hallucinations.

That question is based on the unproven assumption that consciousness can't exist independently of a physical body. Does a body at rest cease to be a body? Disembodied consciousness may perfectly well experience states of rest or sleep, after which it is reborn into a new body and forgets its previous existence.

Besides, consciousness after death is said to inhabit a body (called ochema in Platonism) that is similar to the physical one but made of a more subtle form of substance.

According to Ian Stevenson children sometimes seem to remember aspects of former lives for a few years until memories fade away and the child's consciousness becomes fully integrated with its new existence. — Apollodorus

This sounds like some sort of mysticism rather than Philosophical topics?

Not necessarily. Maybe some of them try but fail to establish contact except through dreams and visions, etc. that, unfortunately, can be explained away as imagination.

Also, they may go into a state of sleep, be reborn or otherwise be engaged in activities or experiences that impede contact with the living. — Apollodorus

But the concept of "consciousness" seems imply inherently, if it exists, then it would make contact, communicate and interact.

When consciousness is asleep or in dreams without its presiding bodies, would it be meaningful to even call it consciousness?

One things for sure is that, we never hear from the dead, how they are doing since their deaths. Surely if their consciousness exist somewhere in some form, they would have (tried to) contacted us?

Logical Investigations
Vol. 1 & 2
by E. Husserl

However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

If there had been ever, then they must had been for their own personal reasons, which must have been their own private and psychological state.

Great — Apollodorus

You are welcome.

It's been discussed because others questioned the existence of soul or self. — Apollodorus

In that case, you shouldn't have said, "But that's not what the thread is about".
Everything and anything can be related to each other, and I was just commenting on your statement, because you uttered it.

Nobody disputes that. But that's not what the thread is about — Apollodorus

You are the one who brought it into the thread.

The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

Another highly doubtful and debatable statement. Problem of Self is a big topic of its own. It has many arguments and theories on the issues.

The OP is about how believers in reincarnation justify it in philosophical/rational terms as opposed to purely religious/faith-based arguments. — Apollodorus

Of course, if one says that he just believes in reincarnation, then it is problem of faith, and doesn't need justification.

But I was saying that, the OP is rather a religious and faith topic, which lies out of the boundaries of objective theoretical and logical verification.