Merged Defend/Debate Reincarnation / Child Reincarnation Stories

[Resume]

Why a hypothesis?

Because this:

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

How can we discuss your ideas about reincarnation if we don't know what you mean by such a thing?

 

[Wonder234]

Simply put if you can't prove the first step required for a proof of reincarnation then you can't prove (justify) reincarnation. Souls are generally defined as entities separate from our physical bodies that represent our metaphysical selves, our senses of identity. Souls are shorthand for what most believers in reincarnation propose are the things that are reincarnated. Are you proposing somehow that our memories are passed on but not any sense of identity or any "self? "

Well, I'm not necessarily trying to prove that souls transfer from body to body. I'm trying to show that someone's memories are actually the memories of another person. If you proved that the memories of one person are the memories of another then you could prove that that's the case, you could do that without talking about a soul.

 

[Wonder234]

Because this:


How can we discuss your ideas about reincarnation if we don't know what you mean by such a thing?

My definition of reincarnation is the standard definition.

Give me your definition of reincarnation.

 

[Resume]

My definition of reincarnation is the standard definition.

Give me your definition of reincarnation.

What do you mean by "standard" definition? This is your claim we're examining here.

 

[Wonder234]

What do you mean by "standard" definition? This is your claim we're examining here.

The definition you find in the dictionary.

 

[Resume]

The definition you find in the dictionary.

Until you iterate exactly what you mean by reincarnation, using concrete language, I don't see how we can proceed. Further, you must provide some sort of objective evidence for examination. This is the minimum for a productive discussion.


More difficult that you thought it'd be, huh?

 

[John Jones]

Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

 

[theprestige]

I had an idea of what I wanted this thread to be, I would post those various points above and someone would point out the problems with it and it would continue from there. Here's an example of what I mean with the first point;

Me: In cases of children who remember past lives where people claim the parents lie about it while getting their children to play along; Some people don't go public about their child's comments that indicate a probable past life and instead just tell friends and family members, which, I believe, removes the incentive for monetary gain and therefore of a reason to lie.

Other Poster: People could still lie without wanting to gain financially, people just lie for fun sometimes, and kids especially like to make things up.

Me: But what kid would think to lie about something such as this? This is not something a kid would be likely to think up.

Other Poster: You don't know that kids have very lively imaginations, I had a niece who once thought she used to be a frog.

And so on.

That seems like a pointless and unsatisfying exercise. Why not cut through all the "yes, but", and present actual testable claims?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[theprestige]

My definition of reincarnation is the standard definition.

Give me your definition of reincarnation.

This is awkward. You don't have any convincing cases of reincarnation. You can't even define reincarnation. What, exactly, makes you think you can defend an idea you can't define and can't give examples of?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[John Jones]

My argument for the existence of souls are those cases of children who remember past lives and who; A) Along with their parents have not gone public with their cases but have kept it to a few family members and friends and B) Claim to have been someone so obscure there is hardly any way of learning about them but through effort.

So the evidence of past lives are people who have never talked about it publicly, or have, but can provide no evidence of it.

There is another thread here that asks what distinguishes woo-woo beliefs. Yours is a perfect example. Can you think of any circumstances or evidence that would falsify reincarnation in your world?

Cripes! Get you some critical think skills!!

 

[Pixel42]

Well, I'm not necessarily trying to prove that souls transfer from body to body. I'm trying to show that someone's memories are actually the memories of another person. If you proved that the memories of one person are the memories of another then you could prove that that's the case, you could do that without talking about a soul.

I think what other posters are trying to get across to you is that the notion of a soul is actually a lot more nebulous and ill defined than it might at first appear, and likewise the notion of reincarnation.

But the idea of first showing that person B has memories that previously belonged to person A who is now dead is, I think, the right way to start a process that might eventually result in meaningful definitions of, and evidence for, both those things.

But the evidence would need to be compelling and unambiguous. As you seem to recognise in your OP, that is not currently the case.

 

[Wonder234]

This is awkward. You don't have any convincing cases of reincarnation. You can't even define reincarnation. What, exactly, makes you think you can defend an idea you can't define and can't give examples of?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

Was the definition of reincarnation I gave earlier not sufficient?

By reincarnated I mean that there's a connection between the person the current person remembers being and their current self wherein the memories of the memories of the former are had by the latter.

By being reincarnated I mean the memories of the previous person show up in someone else. (I know that this is where they usually say awareness is transferred from one body to another, but let's stick with memories)

 

[Wonder234]

So the evidence of past lives are people who have never talked about it publicly, or have, but can provide no evidence of it.

There is another thread here that asks what distinguishes woo-woo beliefs. Yours is a perfect example. Can you think of any circumstances or evidence that would falsify reincarnation in your world?

Cripes! Get you some critical think skills!!

I tried and can not think of what would falsify reincarnation, for me the "evidence" would have to be explained away, so far I have found none of the things meant to explain it away convincing.

 

[SusanB-M1]

My argument for the existence of souls are those cases of children who remember past lives and who; A) Along with their parents have not gone public with their cases but have kept it to a few family members and friends and B) Claim to have been someone so obscure there is hardly any way of learning about them but through effort.

I offer the point I usually make on reincarnation threads: Remember that a child, by the time he or she is able to articulate clearly his or her thoughts, has had several years of observations through all five senses which his or her mind has been absorbing retaining, re-arranging, etc. Any interpretation, or far morelikely, mis-interpretation, by adults of whatever the child says is their responsibility.

 

[Wonder234]

That seems like a pointless and unsatisfying exercise. Why not cut through all the "yes, but", and present actual testable claims?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

If by testable claims you mean cases of reincarnation, I'll try to get to that soon.

 

[Wonder234]

I offer the point I usually make on reincarnation threads: Remember that a child, by the time he or she is able to articulate clearly his or her thoughts, has had several years of observations through all five senses which his or her mind has been absorbing retaining, re-arranging, etc. Any interpretation, or far morelikely, mis-interpretation, by adults of whatever the child says is their responsibility.

Then wouldn't more children report past lives, if they all experienced adults talking and absorbed and rearranged the information?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Then wouldn't more children report past lives, if they all experienced adults talking and absorbed and rearranged the information?

If they did, one can only hope that the adults around them would interpret them correctly!

 

[Pixel42]

I tried and can not think of what would falsify reincarnation, for me the "evidence" would have to be explained away, so far I have found none of the things meant to explain it away convincing.

The scientific approach is the other way round: the default assumption is that a supernatural phenomenon like reincarnation does not exist until and unless compelling evidence is produced to support it. As long as there are alternative mundane explanations that adequately account for any evidence that does exist there is no justification for invoking the supernatural.

 

[Mojo]

I think I will give looking for a case a shot, but if I do not find a convincing one I may not post.

How about the ones you mentioned in post #6?

My position is that the cases people dismiss are actually not that bad when you look at them closely.

How did you know about these cases of you hadn't actually found any?

 

[Wonder234]

The scientific approach is the other way round: the default assumption is that a supernatural phenomenon like reincarnation does not exist until and unless compelling evidence is produced to support it. As long as there are alternative mundane explanations that adequately account for any evidence that does exist there is no justification for invoking the supernatural.

I don't know how I became convinced that reincarnation is real, but once you're convinced, and I do not believe you control being convinced, it is a matter of doubting what you believe.