• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reincarnation

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Have we now? So the "hard question" of science has been now sufficiently answered with overwhelming and widely accepted evidential facts, has it?

As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, there never really was a "hard problem of consciousness." The entire idea begins with the false premise that our mind is somehow different in character to the processes of the brain, which has never actually been demonstrated. In fact, all of our studies on mind-body dualism have shown pretty much the exact opposite for over a century now.

I'm aware that many people have a vested interest in denying these findings and so it continues to be a common argument in pop culture, but the science is pretty much settled.
 

Saint Frankenstein

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Premium Member
Why most people reject reincarnation?
I reject it as it's not compatible with Catholicism at all. Catholicism teaches that the human being is body plus a soul, and that the soul is specifically created for the body (meaning that the soul came into existence at some point in time and was made to enliven that individual's body). So transmigration of souls would be impossible in that framework.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, please. :)
Sorry after post #11 I'm confused as to what you mean by reincarnation. According to my understanding reincarnation traditionally meant the transmigration of spirits from body to body, but if all you mean by reincarnation is that the atoms of the body re-arrange post death then i can agree with you i guess.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There's a lot of methodological issues with the studies and we have yet to see relevant, statistically significant data,

There was a lot of evidence that smoking caused cancer before the definitive proof arrived. So there is historical precedent for where we are in this area.

I do agree from a scientific perspective what we have is evidence that young children can present facts that they have no way of knowing from their experience. And we have evidence of birth defects that are linked to recollection. But this evidence is not sufficient to prove reincarnation from that perspective. And so far I've seen zero alternative explanations that fit the data.

So if someone accepts the evidence and says that there is not sufficient evidence to prove the conjecture, that matches the current state of affairs.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, there never really was a "hard problem of consciousness." The entire idea begins with the false premise that our mind is somehow different in character to the processes of the brain, which has never actually been demonstrated. In fact, all of our studies on mind-body dualism have shown pretty much the exact opposite for over a century now.

I'm aware that many people have a vested interest in denying these findings and so it continues to be a common argument in pop culture, but the science is pretty much settled.

If the science had been settles for over a century then science would be able to tell us, but as it is it not science but just materialists who use science the wrong way to try to show their philosophy is correct. You say that since science cannot find or study spirit then there is no such thing.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, there never really was a "hard problem of consciousness." The entire idea begins with the false premise that our mind is somehow different in character to the processes of the brain, which has never actually been demonstrated. In fact, all of our studies on mind-body dualism have shown pretty much the exact opposite for over a century now.

I'm aware that many people have a vested interest in denying these findings and so it continues to be a common argument in pop culture, but the science is pretty much settled.
So Daniel Dennett has figured it out? It was pretty easy?

I'd be careful to malign those who doubt such easy reductionist answers like this, to have "vested interest in denying these findings". And no, I do not agree that the science is pretty much settled on this, from everything I've heard. Unless you wish to believe the holdouts in science are because they are New Agers or something? Those who are not Reductionists, aren't really True Scientists (tm)?

Hard problem of consciousness - Scholarpedia

I know that reductionists do tend to have a vested in interest in easy answers about hard questions. ;)
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
So Daniel Dennett has figured it out? It was pretty easy?

I'd be careful to malign those who doubt such easy reductionist answers like this, to have "vested interest in denying these findings". And no, I do not agree that the science is pretty much settled on this, from everything I've heard. Unless you wish to believe the holdouts in science are because they are New Agers or something? Those who are not Reductionists, aren't really True Scientists (tm)?

Hard problem of consciousness - Scholarpedia

I know that reductionists do tend to have a vested in interest in easy answers about hard questions. ;)

The fact that nobody can reach an agreement on how to formalize the question itself is not a reductionist argument. It's the reality of the topic.

The advocates for a Hard Problem of Consciousness cannot demonstrate their foundational, implicit claims. Until they can, it's not a question for science but a question for philosophy.

Scientists are free to engage in philosophy about their scientific fields, or even about other scientific fields, but that doesn't make it science. It's not science. Maybe some day it will be, but not now.

ETA: And, yes, I would say the same thing about other "scientific" topics such as string theory and some multiverse theories.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
DNA says humans science is microbial and is human advice.

Man's human father sperm. Woman's human mother ovary.

Yet two complete bio bodies are pre living not yours and functional... owning self replication as adults own total biological cells of every variation as human life replacing itself. Otherwise organs go missing etc.

Tissue in any organ is itself. Why it's not reincarnation too many body variables in waters status.

So a human says my creator is my human parents adult life first in the presence of GOD explanation by human sex..
DNA type body life inherited. Punished life of a sacrificed baby whose adult self health is now missing. Advised. For a long time now.

Same advice.

Past we said humans of science had used technology machines designed reacted who caused it. By humans. Life's bio genesis left.

Pretty basic.

So mind conscious gone by choice of technology fallout caused by human memory then mutated. heavy metal dementia Alzheimer's seen again now as warning proof why. Memory disappears. It's happening again theme.

Mutated DNA human past.

So DNA returns. We begin dreaming seeing heavens cloud recorded visions...images stories re emerge. Higher remassed cloud holding bodies. Characters in visions. Cloud cooling tells us advice. Visions.

It reminds us once before or many lives before your own DNA body memory lived died yet now had returned. Reincarnated again. Healthier human.

How the first testimonial was only where remembered themes were told about life gone returned before. As human memories returned as we reincarnated back into natural healthier human biology.

How crimes not dealt with in the past as we died murdered even the scientist inventors....were dealt with by legal now terms. As the whole truth now.

We taught the karmic consequence of doing human evil eventuates as it has and had. We make status statements from pre learned human life events. Don't think you really get away with doing evil without a future consequence.

Reincarnation of a self with returned self pre lived memories. Warns us told us.

How secrets kept from the public before were future revealed. Only as DNA bio life has healed returned reincarnated back from harmed life.

We taught science applies a theory to remove gods earth dusts first to go back in time to destruction as a chosen by humans reactive conversion. Back in time truth.

In biologies cell past we are already dead.

The answer is exact. How a scientist just a thinker is told why a reactive conversion by Alchemy purpose theirs practiced.... kills or attacks biological advice. As a theme time travel by theist biology owner now.

Legal already knew what human theism implied about time shift of any energy type. Life biologies destruction.

Why Alchemy sciences own beginnings by humans was determined of utmost evil human intentions and outlawed.

Karma....legal definition by karmic returned conscious advice returned.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The fact that nobody can reach an agreement on how to formalize the question itself is not a reductionist argument. It's the reality of the topic.

The advocates for a Hard Problem of Consciousness cannot demonstrate their foundational, implicit claims. Until they can, it's not a question for science but a question for philosophy.

Scientists are free to engage in philosophy about their scientific fields, or even about other scientific fields, but that doesn't make it science. It's not science. Maybe some day it will be, but not now.

ETA: And, yes, I would say the same thing about other "scientific" topics such as string theory and some multiverse theories.
A planet existed by type in its space mass shift. Not in Sun space position conditions.

The sun time shifted it's mass colder sun became..hotter sun space shift to star colder ....earth mass shifted conversion by a colder sun.

False idealism time shift said by calculus about spaces not mass in natural laws. Or a scientist lying.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
UFO sun mass metal amasses by crossover science causes of men... removes involves cloud mass cooling. As it's eventual removal one way out space infinite vacuum

Metal is seen as moving vehicle. Past atmospheric transmitters that recorded life before in bio past living was known humans now then decessed. Re emerges. As you burn to death now in causes UFO transmitter you see all old human memories.

Like the ship experiment stated.

Mother said her life cell a human body owns all human babies.

Men never owned the cell life ovary. Woman human image.

You hence by thesis as just men can eradicate your biology out of her cell.

Probably you did in the past.

Suddenly all men in life cell could die.

Mother's life cell body may have been impregnated with baby man. You survived. By body cell protection only. So said holy human memory returned who said my life now is holy human mother and baby human man born or reborn position.

Could be real via old healthy mutated humans man mutated badly deformed skeletal evidence. Body mutations of a heavenly nuclear event would not be anything like a power plant instant or next day bio death.

By heavens mass conditions in natural law.

It could actually be your evil scientists man's own warnings in memory.

All of a sudden men get DNA life eradicated. As adults for pretending life began in a suns star mass.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
A planet existed by type in its space mass shift. Not in Sun space position conditions.

The sun time shifted it's mass colder sun became..hotter sun space shift to star colder ....earth mass shifted conversion by a colder sun.

False idealism time shift said by calculus about spaces not mass in natural laws. Or a scientist lying.

There is a correlation between the shrinking mass of the earth and the cooling of the sun, but they are not wholly causally related. I might be wrong, but from what I know the mass that's leaving the earth is mostly gas due to global warming, so I don't know why the sun's cooling would have relevance there. Can you show a causal link between the two?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Why most people reject reincarnation?
I suspect the main reason is that a prior belief has already taken centre stage, that is, in one of the Abrahamic beliefs, and where there is another explanation as to what happens when we die - as to some kind of afterlife. With this being quite adequate for many too, given that most probably would prefer such a transition. Those who have thought about reincarnation might accept such, given it opens up far more possibilities, but the paper to ashes thing is hardly relevant since we are more than our physicality - and is why I can't accept any afterlife scenarios. Our being seen more as a process provided by our biology and especially the mind. When such ceases to function properly then so does our existence, even if the atoms go on to have some other life.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Maybe some conflate reincarnation with jumping from one life to another at death. It could be we're broken down over time and the elements that were us are redistributed into other things (from star stuff back to star stuff), even possibly to contribute to another life form one day. That makes sense and even flirts with rational materialism.

And agrees with the 1st law of thermodynamics
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
If the science had been settles for over a century then science would be able to tell us, but as it is it not science but just materialists who use science the wrong way to try to show their philosophy is correct. You say that since science cannot find or study spirit then there is no such thing.
We do know that when our brain is damaged our consciousness can become disoriented or lost entirely. We do know when we lose one of our 5 senses our consciousness is restricted. We know that the smaller the brain an animal has the less conscious it is (noted by behavioral studies), etc

So much about the way our consciousness works relates to the brain. There’s nothing at all to indicate there is another source of our consciousness, there is absolutely no reason to think that either.

btw, do we go to heaven deaf, blind, unable to feel or taste or smell? All of those are attributes to the physical body and brain.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
We do know that when our brain is damaged our consciousness can become disoriented or lost entirely. We do know when we lose one of our 5 senses our consciousness is restricted. We know that the smaller the brain an animal has the less conscious it is (noted by behavioral studies), etc

So much about the way our consciousness works relates to the brain. There’s nothing at all to indicate there is another source of our consciousness, there is absolutely no reason to think that either.

btw, do we go to heaven deaf, blind, unable to feel or taste or smell? All of those are attributes to the physical body and brain.


Even if our consciousness is only temporary, and dies with us when our body dies, is it not still sacred and profound?

“I am the eye with which the universe beholds itself, and knows itself divine.”
- Percy Shelley
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
We do know that when our brain is damaged our consciousness can become disoriented or lost entirely. We do know when we lose one of our 5 senses our consciousness is restricted. We know that the smaller the brain an animal has the less conscious it is (noted by behavioral studies), etc

So much about the way our consciousness works relates to the brain. There’s nothing at all to indicate there is another source of our consciousness, there is absolutely no reason to think that either.

btw, do we go to heaven deaf, blind, unable to feel or taste or smell? All of those are attributes to the physical body and brain.

Yes for me our spirit is joined to our body and experiences through the body.
OBEs in NDEs show that blind people who have been blind since birth, in their OBEs can see. But nothing in that area is considered to be scientific. It seems that science has to discover spirit before it can speak about spirits, so it has areas such as this which are blind spots and coloured by the naturalistic presupposition.
Science cannot say whether God exists and cannot say that spirit does not exist. It's answers and research are about physical things that it can study but when reading it we can easily be convinced that science is telling the WHOLE truth about such things as consciousness etc. and that they are chemically based.
 
Top