DO YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION? why or why not?

[IHadADreamWhere]

I do because of the scientific theory "Energy can not be created nor destroyed" and our souls are energy. That makes me think of life after death. and how do we explain ghosts and spirits ? their energy and people have constantly had experiences with them. I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. I really do believe in reincarnation and think that in the future more people will too (:

[gab]

Moved to Extended discussion

[JustASimpleGuy]

I believe I'll find out sooner or later, or maybe not... :-)

[Denziloe]

Science does not assign energy to souls, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics doesn't really make sense. How many joules are in a soul?

[DreamyBear]

Science does not assign energy to souls, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics doesn't really make sense. How many joules are in a soul? Science is great! BUT... How much does science really know about what we call energy? And since everything there is, is considered to be energy. How do we know where it begin or where it ends when we messure it? So if we take the smalest energy form we know of. How could we really know that, thats the smalest energy form there is. Maybe its one of the bigger strucktures of energy form compared to all there is in the universe. DO YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION? why or why not? Well, since "things" seems to repeat them selfs.. Then I do belive in reincarnation.

[proctree]

Science does not assign energy to souls, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics doesn't really make sense. How many joules are in a soul? Although I do believe that souls exist in some Hermetic way, I have to agree with Denziloe. Thermodynamics probably do not apply to either religion nor the occult, and referring to the law of conservation of energy as a 'theory', is, although technically correct, pretty painful for the ears.

[DreamyBear]

referring to the law of conservation of energy as a 'theory', is, although technically correct, pretty painful for the ears. So we should not go for the pain even if it is technically correct? It is to painful maybe?

[snoop]

So we should not go for the pain even if it is technically correct? It is to painful maybe? No, he means painful in the sense that using the argument that it is a "theory" in the context of the word that is used in regular speech as opposed to the scientific definition is both irritating and inaccurate. "It's only a theory" is both very ignorant and an argument that is abused. The idea that we technically do not call something a "fact" (which, I mean, how can we ever be sure of anything or call anything a fact, by your logic?) means it is false or has a large probability of being wrong is a logical fallacy. Gravity is just a theory too. Man, I guess it means we can't measure it's influence on other objects or tell if it exists or not, right? A) How much does science really know about what we call energy? B)And since everything there is, is considered to be energy. A)Science knows as much as we are able to observe, test, measure, and understand about energy as human beings so far. It is our collective and collaborative knowledge on its existence. I would rather side with that knowledge because it has stringent and rigorous procedures set in place to make sure the observations and conclusions we come to on the subject are as objective as possible. B)You are assuming that souls exist. The idea that "Things repeat themselves, so you will repeat life again" has no such procedures put in place and relies on the loftiest of assumptions that can be made. What are these "things" that repeat themselves? How are they all related? Why does their (possible) correlation to life mean that your life will be reincarnated? For that matter, can the soul be measured? How are we sure that a soul even exists? ...and somehow science's knowledge on energy and the rest of the universe is less believable to you than your "theory" on reincarnation? I simply can't follow your logic there. Now, here are my opinions on reincarnation. I am open to the idea that it is possible. I don't believe it can be falsified or tested for, however, and realize that any ideas on the subject are not only just speculation, but could likely even just be creative imagination. There is nothing solid whatsoever to go off of on the subject, so trying to defend your belief in the subject makes no sense to me. Say that you have faith that it does, like that somebody could have faith that God exists. I don't have a problem with that, because it is a truthful statement without flawed logic being your reason for believing. What I have a problem with is grasping at any little straws you can to hold on to the idea, to prove it's legitimacy and why you believe in it. It's ignorant and there's no two ways about that. There's no matter of wording or explanation a person can come up with that will lead me to believe science is inherently flawed and completely speculative and can even be ignored, but that one's personal beliefs on something like reincarnation based on things that are almost completely random and unrelated (or the connection is only significant to you) makes more sense and is preferable/more plausible. The lack of sense that makes to me is almost stunning.

[Descensus]

I do because of the scientific theory "Energy can not be created nor destroyed" and our souls are energy. That makes me think of life after death. I take issue with the use of the term "soul," but I understand your point. But the First Law of Thermodynamics does not extend to being able to maintain consciousness, or all of our experiences, personality traits, and idiosyncrasies that are stored in our brain. All of those seem to be irreversibly lost at death. and how do we explain ghosts and spirits ? their energy and people have constantly had experiences with them. I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. I really do believe in reincarnation and think that in the future more people will too (: We can't explain ghosts and/or spirits, because they require a suspension of the laws of physics while simultaneously playing fast and loose with biology to become believable. Besides, most instances of ghost or spirit sightings are easily debunked anyway.

[Alric]

No. 1. There is no evidence that souls exist. 2. Even if they did there is no reason to think they would stay intact after death. 3. Even if they did, there is no reason to think they gets absorbed into another person. 4. Even if they did, there is no reason to think that it passes any sort of information or meaning to the new person. Also, even if you wanted to assume a soul was energy, energy can change form and that pretty much screws you since you will most likely end up as some form of energy outside the human body. Also, can a lightning bolt reincarnate as a person?

[OneUp]

Science does not assign energy to souls, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics doesn't really make sense. How many joules are in a soul? It's a shame Science doesn't know all there is to life right? They never will.

[Valinor]

Yes I absolutely do. It just makes logical sense to me. There are so many cases of people who say they can remember their previous life on earth and the details they remember have been confirmed, with it being impossible for the person to know. 3-Year-Old Claims To Remember Who Killed Him In Past Life, Leads Police To Body

[EbbTide000]

I do because of the scientific theory "Energy can not be created nor destroyed" and our souls are energy. That makes me think of life after death. and how do we explain ghosts and spirits ? their energy and people have constantly had experiences with them. I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. I really do believe in reincarnation and think that in the future more people will too (: Wow (!!!) IHadADreamWhere That is a piece of deep thinking, I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. So I "friended" you. How old r u IHadADreamWhere ?

[snoop]

It's a shame Science doesn't know all there is to life right? They never will. Again, this is a logical fallacy, known as ad ignorantiam. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric. You might say, "wait, that means your argument is wrong too!" Not so, because I admit that there is a possibility of it existing. Any way you cut it though, which is the more sensible set of beliefs? The ones based on evidence (phenomenon doesn't exist), or the ones that exist in your dreams and imagination (phenomenon exists)? One of the two options has a significantly higher chance of actually being true, I'll let you guess which option that is.

[gab]

Oh boy, another "It DOES" "It DOES NOT" argument. Science only knows what it knows right now. It doesn't know what it will know tomorrow. But it knows, what it didn't know yesterday.

[OneUp]

Again, this is a logical fallacy, known as ad ignorantiam. You might say, "wait, that means your argument is wrong too!" Not so, because I admit that there is a possibility of it existing. Any way you cut it though, which is the more sensible set of beliefs? The ones based on evidence (phenomenon doesn't exist), or the ones that exist in your dreams and imagination (phenomenon exists)? One of the two options has a significantly higher chance of actually being true, I'll let you guess which option that is. Not once did I say that reincarnation is real nor did I believe in it. You're wrong for putting words into my mouth. You debaters tend to do that quite frequently. All I said was that science does not have the answers to everything, and it never will. Nice try buddy.

[Whatsnext]

Science has nothing to contribute to this question except for "there is no evidence for reincarnation". I don't believe in reincarnation because there is no evidence to support it happening.

[dolphin]

If reincarnation existed, sex would really attract spirits!

[VinceField]

I do because of the scientific theory "Energy can not be created nor destroyed" and our souls are energy. That makes me think of life after death. and how do we explain ghosts and spirits ? their energy and people have constantly had experiences with them. I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. I really do believe in reincarnation and think that in the future more people will too (: It's rather clear that your belief is based on faulty logic. Nothing you said would require reincarnation to be true. No offense is intended, but I encourage you to be more critical and logical in your thinking. Personally, I believe reincarnation is possible, especially after several out of body experiences in which I've gained insight into what may possibly be some of my past lives. However, I do not believe reincarnation is a fact simply because of these experiences. There are several other plausible explanations for these experiences which, in being honest, I must consider as possibilities. The question is, how does the belief in reincarnation serve you? How is this belief of benefit in your life?

[mimihigurashi]

I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. Haha, imo that would suck, I mean after I die I'd like to have some time to explore other worlds, not just "oops I'm dying" *5 seconds later pops out of new mommy* Welp, I'm back xD I think reincarnation is a possibility, one of many.

[VinceField]

There is also the possibility of the "simultaneous multiple incarnation" reincarnation theory, in which the Higher Self simultaneously sends out multiple "probes" (us) into various points in space/time depending on what it desires or needs to experience and learn. "Our" past lives are not actually experiences of our individuated consciousness personality (our human personality/consciousness), but are the experiences of other aspects of our Higher Self, other individuals (probes) who are connected to us through the Higher Self but are unique personalities, and thus we share all of the experiences through our larger consciousness (the Higher Self) even though we only experience our own lifetime first hand. After death we eventually shed our egos and return to/become one with our Higher Self, and from this state all of the life experiences of the other individual consciousnesses are effectively our own, even though it wasn't "us"(the little us) who lived them. Just a theory found to be true by some out of body explorers.

[DreamyBear]

No, he means painful in the sense that using the argument that it is a "theory" in the context of the word that is used in regular speech as opposed to the scientific definition is both irritating and inaccurate. "It's only a theory" is both very ignorant and an argument that is abused. The idea that we technically do not call something a "fact" (which, I mean, how can we ever be sure of anything or call anything a fact, by your logic?) means it is false or has a large probability of being wrong is a logical fallacy. Gravity is just a theory too. Man, I guess it means we can't measure it's influence on other objects or tell if it exists or not, right? I know how to read between the lines Snoop, so no worries there if there was some. What Im saying is just what Im saying. And what you seem to ask me seems to come from a point of view where many assumptions is made out of what I said earlier. If I ask: Is it to painful maybe? And you answear:Yes/No, it is anoying and irritating. Then thats a perfect simple answear to that. I might ask you why it is irritating or anoying. And I could assume that is because you want to discuss within the frame of theories. And that could of course be somewhat hard if someone doesnt play by the rules by asking questions which could potentially shake the agreed facts within any theory there is. I simply can't follow your logic there. This is the main theme for our discussion at this point right now, and that is also why I see no point in pointing out anything more than this right now. Im not assuming that you CAN'T follow my logic, because Im very sure you could if you really wanted it enough. But you just dont want to understand it enough, as I see it. And Im not even interested to argueing what you belive or not belive, because it becomes obvious why you asking what you ask because I can follow what your saying from your point of view. I think Gab pretty much nailed it all with Science only knows what it knows right now. It doesn't know what it will know tomorrow. But it knows, what it didn't know yesterday. However, I have a feeling that this discussion will reincarnate..

[Alric]

As I mention I don't believe in reincarnation since there is really no evidence at all, and honestly it is a pretty far fetch scenario that makes little sense. That said, there is two scenarios that I think reincarnation is possible, though I still don't think it is very likely. 1. We live in some kind of simulation. If true, they could basically save your brain pattern as data and then even after you die you can come back. This would allow for all sort of crazy reincarnation stuff. 2. Theoretically if time was really infinite and space is actually large enough there exists some possibility, some very very unlikely possibility that after you die at some point in the future your brain will be spontaneously reconstructed with all your memories. I have no idea of time is infinite it might not be. However, if there really is such a thing as an infinite amount of time, then even extremely unlikely events may eventually happen. Considering those two things though, neither seem to happen, at least on earth. There isn't evidence that people die and come back in the next generation or anything like that.

[VinceField]

As I mention I don't believe in reincarnation since there is really no evidence at all, and honestly it is a pretty far fetch scenario that makes little sense. But Alric, there is evidence. It is subjective evidence, but evidence nonetheless, and should not be disregarded simply because it is not corroborated by mainstream science. And for the sake of those who may erroneously jump to conclusions and think that I am saying that this evidence proves reincarnation, understand that I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that it raises the possibility.

[Descensus]

Just a theory found to be true by some out of body explorers. It's certainly not a theory in scientific terms, and "out of body explorers" sounds about as rigorously defined and supported as reincarnation does, which is to say, not at all. But Alric, there is evidence. It is subjective evidence, but evidence nonetheless, and should not be disregarded simply because it is not corroborated by mainstream science. And for the sake of those who may erroneously jump to conclusions and think that I am saying that this evidence proves reincarnation, understand that I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that it raises the possibility. If subjective evidence (by which I assume you mean person anecdotes) is taken to be evidence at all (it usually isn't; the plural of anecdote is not data), then it is the weakest form of evidence possible. Probably so weak that it's not even worth considering.