ranacat

That is only true with most things. There are, however, several things [maybe many?] that are singular objects, but only useful in tandem to accomplish the purpose of their innovation. Example: the composite of a drill and added extensions for drilling for oil is actually example of two objects, added to a third, an oil derrick, and, subsequently, added extensions beyond three separate devices unusable, or at least impractical, as each object, alone.

Not to mention that the water molecule example has a hitch relative to function and material condition: less than 6 molecule of H2O, the assembled molecules are not wet, even when linked together. Not a practical distinction, but it is fact.

If you mean the processing; yes, I agree. But the observation of experience [by our various senses] is focused mostly on the body exterior, or more than that, off-body completely, let alone rarely internal.

Yes, on the occasion, since the atonement had to be a supreme, personal sacrifice, I believe Father, by choice, if not obligation, withdrew such that no physical or spiritual sustenance would be supplied by Father, or angels, around him as he willingly completed his purpose for being here - to atone for our sins, our suffering,, physical and spiritual, our doubts, and all things that detract from  our physical and spiritual potential perfection. Jesus, the Christ, had to do it on his own, or fail. That is why more often now than ever before, I offer prayers that are exclusively for gratitude - I do not ask for anything.  It's a practice I have had for about ten years, and it is still hard, but my feeling in my heart and soul swells every time I am successful doing so. I really believe Father is pleased when all I say is how grateful I am for his blessings. They tend to be longer prayers as I try to remember just what I have been given.

You offer a discussion of words; I am all in. I consider myself wordsmith by preference, and my go-to is the OED [Oxford English Dictionary - unabridged], the premier [my belief] dictionary of the English language, being, in print, 20 volumes in 6-point font.   My editi0on came with magnifying glass. Enough about me.

My choice on you list, for now [I'll post other selections] is: knowledge.

First, I believe there is no end to knowledge; it is inexhaustible in volume, and actually expands. I perceive knowledge as an infinite plane of points. Each point represents, first, an individual, unrelated idea, or portion of an idea, perhaps better represented as a single word, disassociated with any other point on the plane. We can link one point with another point, such as an arcing line from one point to another. Each point may have many such lines, each linking to another point on the plane. Thus, ultimately, a complete idea is formed; a single concept in the entire body of knowledge. The plane is functional by points and lines on both sides, such that, potentially, every point on one side [remembering that in mathematics, a single point has no dimensional size] can connect with any other point  on either side of the plane. The plane, with it points and lines, as a visual, would then appear as a sphere which represents the total body of knowledge.

As the body of knowledge grows, more points become linked to other points, allowed to grow the sphere infinitely.

I further believe that, since I maintain that the body of knowledge can be infinite, it's possible that God [I am a Christian] as an inifinate being, at least by our perspective,  he may either be shy of knowing all things, or may know all things, but has not experience all things. I further believe that we, his children, are on an infinite journey of eternal progression, such that, one day, we may gain sufficient knowledge and ability to become like him, while he continues to progress beyond us. So,, if he knows all things, perhaps he has not become experienced in all things, like we may study how to be an astronaut, but do not yet have that experience. Wisdom being, by one definition, the practical use, not just the possession of knowledge. Otherwise, I perceive eternity to be a boring place to be if God not only knows all, but has experienced all. What does he do the day after that achievement it reached? I do not believe we start over from scratch. What's the point of that?

I agree completely with Paul's definition given in HolyBible, [KJV]: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Hebrews 11: 1]  The entire chapter following this first verse explains why, throughout history, the application of faith fit this description of the first verse, that it is  applied by required action to obtain the substance and evidence f things not "seen," yet which are true. Mere belief does not demand action based on a desire to know a thing, and therefore does not compel as does the power of faith to seek and find.

Yes, that does clarify a lot for me. Thank you. 

I believe communication comes to us in many forms. We are most familiar with human-to-human by voice, touch, facial expression, but also from animals by their voice and facial and body expressions, by the Earth herself - I believe nature  is a living entity - and from heavenly beings by voice [I've never experienced that], by mind-to-mind revelation, or by planting thoughts, or by physical appearance [never experienced that, either], and by dreams [I have experienced this, too, as you].

Simply said, I do not believe God - by whatever name by which a supreme being is known - has ceased speaking to man or woman [speaking being the relative term I apply to all sensations I've described above]. AS we learn how to communicate with God, these abilities increase.

I am concerned by the Catholic belief [correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it in the Catechism] that everyone born bears the transgression of Adam & Eve.  I have to ask why, then, did Christ atone for our sins; all of us, including our first parents? Seems to me, the belief we bear their stain denies the atonement, which is infinite, and the whole purpose of Christ's presence among us 2,000 years ago as the Son of the living God in the flesh, as Peter testified to him that Jesus was. [ Matthew 16: 15-18] 

No, becausee the Human Genome Project concluded in, I believe, 2003, that there is DNA evidence of only two genders: female and male, and that these express not by the two genitals, but by the presence of ovaries or testes, and these only come one set to a customer,  as a set of one or the other, but never both. This, in spite of the fact that both genitals may physically express. Further XX and XY may occasionally express as XXY, or XYY, or other variables, but these are not separate genders, by DNA. They are aberrations of XX and XY, and affect only 0.00000007% of the world population; about 500 people, or less than 3 people per country, on average.

The video you watched expresses, I presume, reasons why the producer felt the information given was sufficient proof of transgenderism. But the Human Genome Project concluded in, I believe, 2003, that there is DNA evidence of only two genders: female and male, and that these express not by the two genitals, but by the presence of ovaries or testes, and these only come one set to a customer,  as a set of one or the other, but never both. This, in spite of the fact that both genitals may physically express. Further XX and XY may occasionally express as XXY, or XYY, or other variables, but these are not separate genders, by DNA. They are aberrations of XX and XY, and affect only 0.00000007% of the world population; about 500 people, or less than 3 people per country, on average.

You treat faith as the same thing as belief. There is, I maintain, a substantial difference, because belief imposes no action on anyone's part resulting from the belief. You can believe there are blue Na'vi who live on the moon, Pandora, [from the movie, Avatar], but you are not compelled to do anything about it. That lack of  being compelled to act on the belief  is the divide between belief and faith. Faith maintains something is true even though there is no apparent physical [empirical] evidence of the truth to support it. However, by definition, by the Apostle Paul [KJV Hebrews 11: 1] “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"  the typical empirical evidence by sight, sound, smell, taste and touch does not apply. As Paul describes, "the evidence of things not seen [nor heard, smelled, tasted, or touched]. But id there is not another sense, how is it evidence? Because other animals have senses beyond these 5: echo location, or magnetic north detection, for example. What if faith is another extrasensory humans have access to, like the animal extra senses some have, but must learn how to acquire it? I think it can be done, but it requires effort on our part; the necessary action n to imposed by mere belief. How else to acquire "...the substance of things..."?

Seems to me, science and religion are not separate coins, and not even two sides of one coin, but, in my opinion, share the same side of one coin because there is Truth, capital 'T' that does not and will not change, worlds without end. That is, therefore, true of both science and religion, because both seek truth, and it  need only to be found. Science depends on empiric evidence, i.e, what we determine by our five senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. However, other animals have these, but also others: echo location, sense of magnetic north, etc. Humans do not express these, but I'm suspicious that is only because we do not know how to engage them. Therefore, I believe faith is another sense available to us to engage, and its form of communication is internal feeling, just as a a gurgling stomach is something we feel and hear. The response of faith is a swelling feeling starting from the heart and can encompass the entire body with a swell of palpable enlightenment when a Truth has been realized, or revealed to us by another person, or even by the Holy Spirit. This can engage because by the Spirit, we may know the truth of not just spiritual things, but physical things, therefore not just religion, but science.