What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation?
- Thread starter Illiadus
- Start date
I'm asking which of those definitions you are asking for. Since you're the one asking for it, wouldn't it make more sense that you specify what type of definition it should be? For starters?
Mirrorglass
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 3,464
Uh huh. So what exactly was you goal in giving the definition "The doctrine that the soul reappears after death in another and different bodily form." for reincarnation? Clearly it was not to bring any clarity to the issue, as you rejected the suggestion to use less vague terms.
If you're really interested in my view, I freely admit that there is no 'generally accepted' definition for either 'reincarnation' or 'soul'. That's because any believers of such concepts define them to suit their own needs, not caring about the real world, and skeptics define them in ways that admit they do not describe anything real.
The reason I said any of the above would suffice is I'm quite certain you will be unable to provide any at all. It's like you're asking me to specify what color hovercar I'd like. As long as hovercars don't exist, I really don't see the value in making that decision.
If you're really interested in my view, I freely admit that there is no 'generally accepted' definition for either 'reincarnation' or 'soul'. That's because any believers of such concepts define them to suit their own needs, not caring about the real world, and skeptics define them in ways that admit they do not describe anything real.
The reason I said any of the above would suffice is I'm quite certain you will be unable to provide any at all. It's like you're asking me to specify what color hovercar I'd like. As long as hovercars don't exist, I really don't see the value in making that decision.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Your post, particularly the bit I've quoted, reminds me very much of the concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, praised be her mane.
The definition of reincarnation was given in reply to a direct question from another poster. It was just a dictionary definition.
The quote above is your stand on reincarnation, right? How would you set up an experiment to prove that reincarnation can predict events with more accuracy than the accepted theories, as per your criteria?
If you wouldn't, or can't, why not?
Last edited:
Mirrorglass
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 3,464
As it was accompanied by a 'how about this one', I assumed you were interested in hearing whether said definition was generally accepted. I replied by explaining why it was not.
I wouldn't set up such an experiment because I can see no possible way of me or any one else benefiting from such an arrangement in any detectable, quantifiable or imaginable way.
I couldn't set up such an experiment because I have no idea of what reincarnation could possibly predict more accurately than the accepted theories. This ties in with the fact that there no clear definition for reincarnation exists. If I don't even know what it is, how am I supposed to tell you how to search for it?
You seem to have the strange idea that it's somehow the skeptic's responsibility to define the nature of the phenomenon claimed by the woo. This is ridiculous. If you claim to drive a hovercar, I will counter by saying no such thing exists. I don't need to specify what color the hovercar isn't. Similarly, it's fine to say reincarnation does not happen. There's no need to individually deny each of the myth's variations, including ones not yet thought up by anyone. They're all bunk.
And even if this really is only about trying to convince believers, what makes you think a believer of reincarnation will ever accept a definition you provide? Any unambiguous and consistent definition of reincarnation would be simple to disprove. If you present such a definition to a believer, they will invariably reject it. That leaves only vague, contradictory definitions, and they already have plenty of those. I'm sure they won't mind taking up the new ones, too, but it certainly won't help convince them.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
So you'd best stop trying then, hadn't you? It's dishonest and disingenuous.
No.
No. Also, ad hominem.
First rule of holes, Illiadus. First rule of holes.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
You tell us.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Sure. Just stop doing it. It's pretty easy.
Respond to people's posts. Read what they actually write. Accept corrections. Avoid ad hominem attacks and petty insults.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
1. I specifically stated that I wanted your ideas as to what reincarnation was, and now I want them in your words. Citing a dictionary definition sdoes not tell us a single thing about what goes on in your mind.
2. Again your comment re the Bridey Murphy case does not tell us anything. It is without question the most analysed reincarnation story in history, and has sent people all over Ireland trying to find answers. And in doing so has created a library wall of literature. So what am I supposed to "get serious" about? What does your one-liner even mean?
An extremely well researched study shows that the Bridey Murphy case did not hold any water. Did you even read the context of that post?
Norm
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
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.
Last edited:
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 3,766
I also read, and post on occasionally, a forum where the majority are woo-inclined. The majority view on reincarnation there is that souls choose (or are put into) a person and when that person dies, the soul leaves the body and either drifts around for a bit, or joins the other souls, or goes straight into another person. Apparently, it has to learn things and return this knowledge to the collective. I have sometimes asked where this holding zone is, but answers are always vague or non-existent, or include other paralel dimensions; and of course, being a sceptic, how could I possibly understand. I mention that I spent years reading and thinking about such things, but most of them read this through a filter. I hasten to add that most are lovely people in whose company I would enjoy being.
Since all members of the human species are complete, unified collections of cells etc etc, and since words like 'soul' and spirit' are simply language labels which they have invented to enable them to discuss different aspects of personality and character (here again two words which have subtle differences, but which do not describe discreet parts of a person), it is impossible to think reincarnation through to its absolute, logical conclusion and still believe it to be possible. Of course, there are puzzling details which elude analysis, but they have to remain as question marks until Science catches up.
I wonder whether the 'wonderful research' being carried on, apparently, by some eminent scientists in order to study reincarnation has a strong bias towards proving its existence rather than the opposite, but I have not spent time following the links to read about such research. My present life, and keeping as fit as possible to have as many years of it as possible, is more important!
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Yes, I think that the OP has been answered to death at this point. I'm unconvinced that another thread will help matters, though.
It most probably won't. I'm just saying it's hard to keep track where things stand at this point. Especially for those who haven't been following from the start.
How do I go about to abandon this thread, then? Do I just stop posting or is there an official way of closing it?
People keep asking me things and I don't want to be rude and not answer. I'm taking your advice now, so could you answer nicely?
Basically, yes. You could provide a link to the new thread (if you want to start one) and direct people there. You could also ask a moderator to close the thread, although I'm not sure about the policy in those cases.