Genady

Agree with everything except one point. I don't see a requirement to prove God's existence. One could sense God regardless of its existence, as pointed in some comments above (by @mistermack, I think).

I read that the percentage of people who answer "none" to the question of religion, is rising. This is much better than switching one religion for another.

This is true. However, nothing prevents God from being "a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping". IOW, your answer to the question, "How do we know that it is not God?" is that we don't know, and I agree with it. My point is that for the lack of knowledge, we "choose this as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities." (My emphasis.) I think that there is no reason for this choice, but I know why I make it. I just don't like the alternative, it stinks.

Yes, or a setup.

I can't tell by your comment if you see the animal there.

Just announced: 'Presumed human remains' found in debris field of doomed Titan submersible, US Coast Guard says | CNN

Nice, +1, albeit I don't consider it a natural camouflage.

There is some, e.g., Titan implosion: What happened to bodies and will they ever be recovered? (geo.tv) Breaking news: 'Presumed human remains' found in debris field of doomed Titan submersible, US Coast Guard says | CNN

Super Massive Black Hole with Quantum Hair. Yep, it's God.

Any.

There is credible evidence to support the existence of a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy. How do we know that it is not God?

But by what definition? Does not this number depend on how one decides to "conceptually compartmentalize it", as @joigus has described here, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127423-why-cant-one-sense-god/?do=findComment&comment=1243802? Is not it arbitrary?

Thank you to everyone!

Thank you, @TheVat! I've noticed that few of these negs disappeared and suspected that mods took care of that. Good to know that it was you.

I am pretty sure it was the same person who downvoted half a dozen of my posts about the same time. We both know that person now.

Thank you. I'll work on being more precise in writing.

You're right, the first one was a bad statement. But I've fixed it just a couple of posts later,

I think it is a convention, because in the last 15 or so years since I started to study this part of physics, I don't remember seeing a different use of these concepts.

You guys just repeat what I say. I know all this, and I was talking about when we FEEL gravity, we FEEL acceleration. When we free fall, we don't feel gravity and we don't feel acceleration. We FEEL zero acceleration then, which is different from non-zero acceleration that we feel when we don't free fall. I guess, you simply misread what I said. For example, you said, and I said earlier, The same. Is my English so bad? Was not it clear that in "we" I mean "human body"?

So, we feel acceleration, and we feel difference in acceleration, including the difference between zero and not-zero acceleration.

We feel the effect of gravity, but not the gravity. This effect is not distinguishable from the effect of upward acceleration without gravity.

Yes, I feel it. It's a sense. And it is not one of the original five.

Suggestion to split the discussion of senses from the original thread and to move it to a biology forum.

Isn't a change from not free-falling to free-falling an acceleration?

There is a little thing in my vestibular system that stops pushing on some receptor and gives me feeling of the fall. If I accelerate upward, it pushes stronger and gives me feeling of accelerating up. Etc.