Why are you still pursuing definitions? I assumed that you had read and understood my posts.
Here’s an example: I’m out camping and hiking in the woods. One day my shoe ends up missing. I don’t know how or why. I can’t explain it. I come to the conclusion that it was eaten by a grue. Everyone, who also don’t have any better explanation, agrees the shoe must have been eaten by a grue. After a while, I find my shoe behind a tree, which was where I left it. It turns out it was not eaten by a grue. There is no such thing as a grue. I just made it up so that I had some kind of explanation for my missing shoe.
Now, Bill says that he still believes that there is a grue. He won’t let the made-up, obsolete concept go. He asks, “What would be sufficient to prove the existence of a grue?”
So people ask Bill, “Well, what exactly is a grue?” Bill doesn’t know. He asks them what they think a grue is. So people ask Bill, “What does a grue do? How can a grue be differentiated from anything else?” Again, Bill doesn’t know. So people ask Bill, “So why do you even think there is any such thing as a grue in the first place? You can’t define it, you have not observed anything that cause you to believe or even think about the possibility that there is a grue, a grue is illogical, and there is no evidence of a grue.” (Remember, Bill only believes in a grue because I made it up when I was completely wrong about what happened to my shoe.)
Now, Bill says, “Well, how about this for a possible definition of a grue?”
This is you, here. Now, Illiadus says, “Well, how about this for a possible definition of reincarnation?”
Reincarnation is the grue. Someone who believes in the grue will go about finding things that look suspicious and bringing them up as possible evidence of the grue. Believers will point out that the evil skeptics agree that they is no evidence that will prove the existence of a grue and call them close minded. Believers will try to find definitions and logical explanations for the grue.
Of course, this is all silly. We know that the grue was just something that I made up. There is no observed phenomenon that requires a grue as an explanation. If we start with the belief that there is a grue, then we can go on looking for phenomena, definitions, logical explanations, possible test, and so on for ever and ever and ever and get nowhere because the grue was just made up in the first place.
Unless, an until, there is, by some remote chance, a need for a “grue hypothesis” as a plausible explanation for some unexplained observed phenomenon, then we do not need a definition, explanation, or tests to verify the existence of a grue.
If someone whishes to believe in a grue, nonetheless, then THEY need to provide the definition of what they believe. I, even as the inventor of the grue, would certainly not attempt to impose my own definition on someone else’s grue belief. I know that the grue is made up, because I made it up. Any definition by me would be that the grue is something I made up. If someone has a different belief, they need to state what that belief is—they need to define the grue that THEY are talking about, because it is not the same as mine.
If, however, your intention is to discuss certain pieces of evidence that you or other people have or do consider to be valid proof of reincarnation, then we can certainly discuss that evidence. In that case, we don’t need a definition of reincarnation, or logical arguments for the hypothesis, and all other such things.
We can just debunk the “supposed” evidence, which is far, far, far easier to do than getting into complex arguments about possible experimental validations of hypotheses for undefined paranormal and possibly undetectable phenomenon.
