Thread: Reincarnation

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?
According to the latest evidence the number of people who have ever lived on earth is > 100 billion ( > 0.1 trillion!). The number living today is 6-7 billion. Going back about 20 years there was a study which suggested that there are more people alive today than have ever existed before. I remember a christian priest appearing on TV to claim that this was proof enough that reincarnation could not take place.
Clearly the population trend from say 2000 years ago is one of expansion, so where do souls come from in the first place? The only 'evidence' for reincarnation lies in the brainwashing of people by some religions, as about half the world's population appear to believe in this.
The soul of Adam would still be alive in a body today, unless it has been liberated somewhere along the generations.

I used to be an armadillo. Armadillos have souls too.

if you're being unscientific enough to believe there is something inside of us making decisions other than chemical reactions in our brains, then you really shouldn't even have to adress this problem. you can just say brahma's infinite supply of energy creates new souls.

of course if you're being scientific about your study of reincarnation you will probably conclude that it was used because the caste system in india was easy to create and maintain if people believed they had earned their place in a past life. and it is easy to make people follow social expectations because they fear becoming untouchables, or cows, in their next life.

Originally Posted by saul

...because they fear becoming untouchables, or cows, in their next life.

It is certainly easier to make them fear becoming untouchables in this life.

what fear becoming cows cows are SACRED in India one of the high class was actually named cow in san skrit(I think don't remember well learned this stuff last year) you wanted to become a cow.

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?

Before this topic can be discussed here, you will need to empirically demonstrate the existence of the soul. Once this is done, we can move on to discuss the topic of reincarnation. Otherwise, it's a useless idea at worst -pseudoscientific at best.

Other than "Soul", let's say "Resilient Conscience Body". Now let's theorize that this "RCB" be composed of an exotic matter, oh say darkmatter. Now we have science. Well okay, theoretical science. The closest we have to empirical proof of any of this is the orbital velocities of stellar masses at galactic rim's. Which suggest's but doesn't prove darkmatter.
An RCB could be considered as data or even a program, and then the biological brain as a computer or processor. I think it is certainly possible to analyze the potentiality of an unknown component of consciousness without resorting to myth or legend.
By the way, Hindi culture is not the only one with a theory of transmigration. The Buddhists, Theravedic, Cha-an, Soto, Rinzai, and many other forms, all have doctrines of transmigration that don't involve a caste system.

What qualities does dark matter possess to make it capable of being a component of a "soul" (whatever that means).

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

What qualities does dark matter possess to make it capable of being a component of a "soul" (whatever that means).

Hell, what qualities does dark matter definitively possess, period.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Hell, what qualities does dark matter definitively possess, period.

It's dark, but I'm not sure that matters.

Really, there's no surety that darkmatter or anything like it exist's. If it doe's exist, it might be unicorn poop. Currently there are some experiment's running that are looking for WIMP's(Weakly Interacting Massive Particle's).
I was merely using darkmatter as an example of a suspected exotic matter. An unknown variety of subtly interacting matter might structuralize through an evolution like process. And this could be a component of consciousness.
Just an idea. I'm not saying that's how it is.

Originally Posted by Topalk

what fear becoming cows cows are SACRED in India one of the high class was actually named cow in san skrit(I think don't remember well learned this stuff last year) you wanted to become a cow.

the cow is sacred, thus the rebelion when the brittish empire was using animal fat to grease its guns. however you didn't want to become a cow, a cow was just below an untouchable on the reincarnation chain. one wanted to become the equivelant of a priest in hinduism. in budhism one wished to follow rules that applied to all and if they did so they went to nirvana which meant you ceased to be reincarnated. but it's all besides the point because as skin walker pointed out:

you will need to empirically demonstrate the existence of the soul

and as far as the "rcb" is concerned, that doesn't go beyond something skin walker already pointed out:

it's a useless idea at worst -pseudoscientific at best.

he wasn't reffering to the idea of an rcb at the time, but it is at best pseudoscientific. all of human thought could be determined if the stimulae were known and the exact initial condition of the human in question were known, it's molecular biology or chemistry. a simple problem for a big computer. of course we don't have the exact initial condition of anything(thank's planck) so we can't determine it, but it's a general consensus that it is deterministic. thus we have science 1, soul 0

Fuck determinism.
On the quantum scale physics is stochastic and not wholly deterministic.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I used to be an armadillo. Armadillos have souls too.

"The ancient armadillo
is as simple as the rain,
He’s an armour plated pillow
with a microscopic brain,
He’s thoroughly disinterested
in what the world has wrought,
But spends his time in contemplative
Armadyllic thought"

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Fuck determinism.
On the quantum scale physics is stochastic and not wholly deterministic.

anyone who has read hawkings book "a brief history of time" should be able to understand that determinism is accurate even on the quantum scale if you have the initial conditions. our issues with determinism arise from the fact that we don't have initial conditions. your interpretation is inaccurate, and you don't offer any evidence to support your claims. i point to a book written by an expert on the topic, do experts agree that dark matter or some other exotic thing is involved in human biology?

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I used to be an armadillo. Armadillos have souls too.

"The ancient armadillo
is as simple as the rain,
He’s an armour plated pillow
with a microscopic brain,
He’s thoroughly disinterested
in what the world has wrought,
But spends his time in contemplative
Armadyllic thought"

I like it. Is that Ogden Nash, or you? Or someone else?

That would be Jack Prelutsdy from his book on poems for children, Be Glad Your Nose is on Your Face and other poems.

An awesome
altruistic armada,
of armoured armadillos,
ambling amiably along
as alway's.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Hey saul, your knowledge of physics is equal to your knowledge of when to capitalize when writing the English language.

Let's not resort to this -even if in humor.

Let's not resort to this -even if in humor.

Admittedly not "cricket" of me. Sorry.

anyone who has read hawkings book "a brief history of time" should be able to understand that determinism is accurate even on the quantum scale if you have the initial conditions. our issues with determinism arise from the fact that we don't have initial conditions. your interpretation is inaccurate, and you don't offer any evidence to support your claims. i point to a book written by an expert on the topic, do experts agree that dark matter or some other exotic thing is involved in human biology?

On the quantum scale, physics is stochastic. Read up on the Copenhagen interpretation. Or go ask on the physics board of this forum. Are exotic matter's and or energy's involved in human biology? I don't know. I might be the first to ask the question.

If it is all predetermined, then why get out of bed in the morning? Are you, through a philosophy of determinism, attempting to abrogate your personal, moral responsibility for some heinous crime?

I'm still not clear about this. Does Brahma manufacture souls which come down to earth to incarnate into animals first or straight into humans? Does your accumulated karma after death end up on a balance (like Anubis weighing the heart) and if you have been a bad boy you end up in an animal, but if you have been a good boy you reincarnate as some sort of superman. Does St. Peter really control the elevator to hell or heaven? Does the dark energy of science equate to the prana/chi/grace of religion? If you believe in fate then do you take care when crossing the road? Do you believe that your astral body survives death to float away to some purgatorial region to await paradise or damnation?
I realised only last week that when unexpectedly coming face to face with the kundalini yoga merchants that all I wanted to do was to argue with their ridiculous dogma, just as I could do with all religion. Should we simply accept now that religion is just social engineering from a bygone age, in order to keep the peace.

I am not at all educated in Hindi religion or philosophy so am not really qualified to speak on them.
Exotic matter's/energy's if they exist should be understandable in the context of a unified field theory.
Because I firmly disbelieve fate beyond the tendency's of the law of average's, I certainly pay attention when crossing the road.
Religion would not be all that bad if people knew to call it "guessing".
Are you in India? Have you seen any snake's? I like snake's.

Silly serpent's,
solemnly snacking,
seriously slither
sideway's.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Let's not resort to this -even if in humor.

Admittedly not "cricket" of me. Sorry.

anyone who has read hawkings book "a brief history of time" should be able to understand that determinism is accurate even on the quantum scale if you have the initial conditions. our issues with determinism arise from the fact that we don't have initial conditions. your interpretation is inaccurate, and you don't offer any evidence to support your claims. i point to a book written by an expert on the topic, do experts agree that dark matter or some other exotic thing is involved in human biology?

On the quantum scale, physics is stochastic. Read up on the Copenhagen interpretation. Or go ask on the physics board of this forum. Are exotic matter's and or energy's involved in human biology? I don't know. I might be the first to ask the question.

If it is all predetermined, then why get out of bed in the morning? Are you, through a philosophy of determinism, attempting to abrogate your personal, moral responsibility for some heinous crime?

i have commited no crime. however if life is not predetermined then there is some degree of randomness to the universe. if there is true randomness then we cannot predict the world perfectly. i am philosophically supportive of determinism because such randomness puts a cap on the capabilities of humanity to understand the world.

such a belief is based on philosophy and thus i can't really argue it, but my belief is that we have the capability to uncover the exact progression of the universe. and as far as why get out of bed, well does randomness add some type of reason to get out of bed? personally i get out of bed simply because of a deterministic fact, if i do not get out of bed i will not make money and cannot pay for food or the house in which my bed is located.

and yes my knowledge of when to use capitals is slightly flawed, but if you are pointing to my use of capitals on this forum you should know that it is simply because i don't care. but my knowledge of physics is far better than my knowledge of the english language because i only see it neccesary to understand english minimally, an understanding of physics for me is quite neccisary however.

if i do not get out of bed i will not make money

One of the reasons I get out of bed sometimes. Sometimes I actually want to get out of bed, on day's I don't have to work. But, you said "if". Doe's this mean you had a choice? If the whole of existence is absolutely predetermined, then why speak out about Darfur? Why even try to cap the oil well gushing out into the Gulf of Mexico? Why vote, or call or write your congressperson? Why have red, or blue shirt's, because no real choice of shirt color is really made. Why get up and go make money, if it is predestined that the money is made? Cogito ergo sum, is either a true condition, or it is delusion. Do you "feel" real? Or do you "feel" as an automaton? That you are inexorably bound to a particular path despite effort or the lack thereof?

Also, if you hope to understand the whole progression of the Universe, then you need to study not only English, but every existent language in the Universe. They (the languages) are part of the Universe.

Originally Posted by saul

i have commited no crime. however if life is not predetermined then there is some degree of randomness to the universe. if there is true randomness then we cannot predict the world perfectly. i am philosophically supportive of determinism because such randomness puts a cap on the capabilities of humanity to understand the world.

That is not a valid argument.

Originally Posted by saul

personally i get out of bed simply because of a deterministic fact, if i do not get out of bed i will not make money and cannot pay for food or the house in which my bed is located.

I guess you may have clinical depression or some other psychological problem.

Originally Posted by ox

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?
According to the latest evidence the number of people who have ever lived on earth is > 100 billion ( > 0.1 trillion!). The number living today is 6-7 billion. Going back about 20 years there was a study which suggested that there are more people alive today than have ever existed before. I remember a christian priest appearing on TV to claim that this was proof enough that reincarnation could not take place.
Clearly the population trend from say 2000 years ago is one of expansion, so where do souls come from in the first place? The only 'evidence' for reincarnation lies in the brainwashing of people by some religions, as about half the world's population appear to believe in this.
The soul of Adam would still be alive in a body today, unless it has been liberated somewhere along the generations.

you haven't included all life forms in your workings ... what to speak of all life int he universe .... IOW you are not working with the closed system

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?

Before this topic can be discussed here, you will need to empirically demonstrate the existence of the soul. Once this is done, we can move on to discuss the topic of reincarnation. Otherwise, it's a useless idea at worst -pseudoscientific at best.

I'm sure you've heard of people being able to recall details of many centuries ago in villages in countries they have never visited

I'm sure you recall people being imaginative and delusional.

There simply isn't any empirical evidence of "past life" or reincarnation, something that should be simple for those that claim it to exist. We need only Jimmy Hoffa to reveal the place he met his demise. Or any other similar experience.

Yet the only thing we get are vague anecdotes from people who are able to "recall" village life.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?

Before this topic can be discussed here, you will need to empirically demonstrate the existence of the soul. Once this is done, we can move on to discuss the topic of reincarnation. Otherwise, it's a useless idea at worst -pseudoscientific at best.

I'm sure you've heard of people being able to recall details of many centuries ago in villages in countries they have never visited

How do you know their claims are correct? How were they tested?

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?

Before this topic can be discussed here, you will need to empirically demonstrate the existence of the soul. Once this is done, we can move on to discuss the topic of reincarnation. Otherwise, it's a useless idea at worst -pseudoscientific at best.

I'm sure you've heard of people being able to recall details of many centuries ago in villages in countries they have never visited

How do you know their claims are correct? How were they tested?

Google it and you can find a few incidents of people actually taking such persons to task and doing in depth research to see if their claims measure up

here's what I turned up in 5 seconds on goggle
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=au

Perhaps the discrepency between reincarnation and the approximate number of people who have lived on earth is as such because time is irrelevant where souls are concerned, and souls can inhabit a being at any time or place in the future after the physical body it last inhabited died.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Google it and you can find a few incidents of people actually taking such persons to task and doing in depth research to see if their claims measure up

here's what I turned up in 5 seconds on goggle
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=au

So you linked us to what you called "in depth research". One account of alleged reincarnation was printed in "Oriental Women" magazine. The article did not at all describe serious research, but rather anecdote published with no admission to peer review.

Originally Posted by quantumintel

Perhaps the discrepency between reincarnation and the approximate number of people who have lived on earth is as such because time is irrelevant where souls are concerned, and souls can inhabit a being at any time or place in the future after the physical body it last inhabited died.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

How do you know their claims are correct? How were they tested?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

I'm sure you recall people being imaginative and delusional.

There simply isn't any empirical evidence of "past life" or reincarnation, something that should be simple for those that claim it to exist. We need only Jimmy Hoffa to reveal the place he met his demise. Or any other similar experience.

Yet the only thing we get are vague anecdotes from people who are able to "recall" village life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_L..._reincarnation

Originally Posted by Search for reincarnated Dalai Lama

Once the High Lamas have found the home and the boy they believe to be the reincarnation, the boy undergoes a series of tests to affirm the rebirth. They present a number of artefacts, only some of which belonged to the previous Dalai Lama, and if the boy chooses the items which belonged to the previous Dalai Lama, this is seen as a sign, in conjunction with all of the other indications, that the boy is the reincarnation.

I'm sure this is not held to fully scientific standards, of course. (It is a religion after all.), and sometimes it yields more than one potential soul recipient.... which also adds some dubiousness, but at least it goes a step beyond the purely anecdotal.

And each of those has either a more prosaic or mundane explanation requiring no extraordinary assumptions. Reincarnation is an extraordinary claim for which we get zero testable evidence.

Originally Posted by quantumintel

Perhaps the discrepency between reincarnation and the approximate number of people who have lived on earth is as such because time is irrelevant where souls are concerned, and souls can inhabit a being at any time or place in the future after the physical body it last inhabited died.

Please define 'soul', and explain from where you derive such understanding???

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Google it and you can find a few incidents of people actually taking such persons to task and doing in depth research to see if their claims measure up

here's what I turned up in 5 seconds on goggle
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=au

So you linked us to what you called "in depth research". One account of alleged reincarnation was printed in "Oriental Women" magazine. The article did not at all describe serious research, but rather anecdote published with no admission to peer review.

So do you think that is the strongest issue of the link or the weakest?

I think it was Carl Sagan who remarked words to the effect that due to a dominant predisposition of institutional science to guffaw reincarnation, in depth research into it, while certainly warranted, is impeded.

Or as Herbert Spencer says quite to the point ...

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”


Your analysis of the link seems to back up his statement.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

So do you think that is the strongest issue of the link or the weakest?

Two other accounts from the link were published in books. I've read a Dr. Seuss book about a talking, anthropomorphic cat wearing human headgear. In either instance, how has the publisher assured the veracity of these claims? The fourth story of the alleged reincarnation of Wu of Liang (Xiao Yan) was gleaned from 5th - 6th century Chinese records. Antiquated Chinese court documents often claimed that emperors were living gods and kings of the earth. Do you also accept this? If not, why? If you are to take the story of reincarnation at face value, I think you are due for a monetary tribute to the ancestors of ancient China's great dragon god.

In each of these instances, who is doing the fact checking? Is all the raw data fully exposed and able to be compiled for meta-analysis? To answer your question, I think that these four stories are equally weak as each relies solely on hearsay.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I think it was Carl Sagan who remarked words to the effect that due to a dominant predisposition of institutional science to guffaw reincarnation, in depth research into it, while certainly warranted, is impeded.

I would like to read this statement verbatim, in the proper context. Please provide citation. Carl Sagan was a known skeptic of reincarnation. He even had a discussion with the Dalai Lama, asking "what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science." Sagan was no proponent of mysticism, but was open to experimentation and studies based on subjects like ESP, reincarnation and alien piloted UFO's. After sifting through available information, he remained unconvinced that these were legitimate occurrences.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Or as Herbert Spencer says quite to the point ...

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”


Your analysis of the link seems to back up his statement.

I rather think that my analysis expresses a rejection of tall tales and lack of gullibility.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I think it was Carl Sagan who remarked words to the effect that due to a dominant predisposition of institutional science to guffaw reincarnation, in depth research into it, while certainly warranted, is impeded.

Please cite the quote.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I think it was Carl Sagan who remarked words to the effect that due to a dominant predisposition of institutional science to guffaw reincarnation, in depth research into it, while certainly warranted, is impeded.

Please cite the quote.

At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images “projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation (Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1995, p. 302).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
In the book, Sagan states that if a new idea continues in existence after an examination of the propositions, it should then be acknowledged as a supposition. Skeptical thinking essentially is a means to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He believes that reason and logic would succeed once the truth is known. Conclusions emerge from premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.

Just following your quote, he finishes the paragraph with:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.

The title of the chapter is the "Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder." Since Sagan wrote this, many have taken his advice and attempted to demonstrated empirically ESP, Remote Viewing, and reincarnation. Neither has been shown to have merit. But please, let the scientific testing continue.

Just don't claim it's real until it's shown to be. There isn't even good reason beyond fear of death to believe it is, but perhaps this is reason enough, eh?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Just following your quote, he finishes the paragraph with:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.

The title of the chapter is the "Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder." Since Sagan wrote this, many have taken his advice and attempted to demonstrated empirically ESP, Remote Viewing, and reincarnation. Neither has been shown to have merit. But please, let the scientific testing continue.

really?
you have examples of the "serious" study that has ensued?
and how they are all shown to have no merit?

Just don't claim it's real until it's shown to be. There isn't even good reason beyond fear of death to believe it is, but perhaps this is reason enough, eh?

reason enough for staggering opposition at the onset, eh?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Just following your quote, he finishes the paragraph with:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.

The title of the chapter is the "Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder." Since Sagan wrote this, many have taken his advice and attempted to demonstrated empirically ESP, Remote Viewing, and reincarnation. Neither has been shown to have merit. But please, let the scientific testing continue.

really?
you have examples of the "serious" study that has ensued?

Just don't claim it's real until it's shown to be. There isn't even good reason beyond fear of death to believe it is, but perhaps this is reason enough, eh?

reason enough for staggering opposition at the onset, eh?

It's called scepticism. Refusing to believe that which is unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is not a pronouncement that this or that is wrong or should not be studied. It is call for exactly the opposite. Show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

It's called scepticism. Refusing to believe that which is unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is not a pronouncement that this or that is wrong or should not be studied. It is call for exactly the opposite. Show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Which is why the first point I address is

Or as Herbert Spencer says quite to the point ...

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

I mean you have persons who had no way to know about minute details in a far away location in a different time and your initial response is more or less "they are all obviously hoaxes". I mean fair enough if you want to believe that, but please show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

A scientific rebuttal to reincarnation: The concept of reincarnation is widely accepted among non-Christians (*), probably because it appeals to many who would like to believe that they would be given a second chance in case they failed to make the grade in this life. Christianity disputes reincarnation because it is unnecessary, since anybody can "make the grade" simply through an act of their own will through faith in Jesus Christ. The scientific rebuttal to reincarnation is quite simple. Because of the population explosion, more people are currently living on the earth than have ever lived on the earth for the entire history of humankind(**). In other words, over half of the people who have ever lived on earth have never died even once! There simply are not enough dead souls to go around for a second time. This does not absolutely eliminate reincarnation, but it does severely restrict its extent, especially for those who have claimed to have lived several times before. However, some people believe that souls can be reincarnated into or from animals. In that case, it is possible that many people have been frogs before they became princes.

* assume they mean non-Abrahamic religions
** this was my original question : Is this true or false?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean you have persons who had no way to know about minute details in a far away location in a different time and your initial response is more or less "they are all obviously hoaxes". I mean fair enough if you want to believe that, but please show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

On the contrary. The non-standard claim is the one that must demonstrate its veracity and remove doubts about misinterpretation, poor observaiton, or deliberate deception. The onus is on you.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

It's called scepticism. Refusing to believe that which is unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is not a pronouncement that this or that is wrong or should not be studied. It is call for exactly the opposite. Show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Which is why the first point I address is

Or as Herbert Spencer says quite to the point ...

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

And you have quite seriously misunderstood Spencer, who would have known well the difference between closed mindedness and skepticism.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean you have persons who had no way to know about minute details in a far away location in a different time and your initial response is more or less "they are all obviously hoaxes".

Never did I make that assertion. Quote me.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean fair enough if you want to believe that, but please show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Oh wow I totally see what you did right there.

Ophiolite already said it, burden of evidence is always on the person with the novel claim. If we had to refute every brain fart we ever encountered we'd spend our lives doing other people's work for them.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

On the contrary. The non-standard claim is the one that must demonstrate its veracity and remove doubts about misinterpretation, poor observaiton, or deliberate deception. The onus is on you.

Right
So perhaps now you can suggest why there is no substance to Carl Sagan's calls for further investigation or why the evidence already at hand is insubstantial.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

It's called scepticism. Refusing to believe that which is unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is not a pronouncement that this or that is wrong or should not be studied. It is call for exactly the opposite. Show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Which is why the first point I address is

Or as Herbert Spencer says quite to the point ...

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

And you have quite seriously misunderstood Spencer, who would have known well the difference between closed mindedness and skepticism.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean you have persons who had no way to know about minute details in a far away location in a different time and your initial response is more or less "they are all obviously hoaxes".

Never did I make that assertion. Quote me.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean fair enough if you want to believe that, but please show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Oh wow I totally see what you did right there.

Ophiolite already said it, burden of evidence is always on the person with the novel claim. If we had to refute every brain fart we ever encountered we'd spend our lives doing other people's work for them.

then feel free to explain why the evidence at hand is insubstantial

What evidence "at hand" would you consider "substantial?" Please cite and summarize the most convincing of this evidence for discussion.

Originally Posted by ox

Can the sums possibly add up to provide evidence for the transmigration of souls?

Yes it can, if you understand the coefficients of the equation.

Originally Posted by ox

According to the latest evidence the number of people who have ever lived on earth is > 100 billion ( > 0.1 trillion!).

What source did you get that from? I've heard ~60 bil. But it doesn't disprove the math.

Originally Posted by ox

Going back about 20 years there was a study which suggested that there are more people alive today than have ever existed before.

What study? I believe that statement to be wrong.

Originally Posted by ox

I remember a Christian priest appearing on TV to claim that this was proof enough that reincarnation could not take place.

Many Christians are now believers in reincarnation or at least open to it. Christians believe that "the Christ will return and there will be a resurrection of the dead". How could that possibly be scientifically explained if not through reincarnation? There's an excellent book: Reincarnation - The Missing Link In Christianity by Elizabeth Claire Prophet.

Originally Posted by ox

Clearly the population trend from say 2,000 years ago is one of expansion, so where do souls come from in the first place?

It's a huge mistake to assume that souls can only be human and that these energies can only come from this planet.

Originally Posted by ox

The only 'evidence' for reincarnation lies in the brainwashing of people by some religions

Absolutely NOT! Google: Soul Surviver. This book and story was promoted on ABC Primetime & Good Morning America (youtube)

I am writing a book entitled: Famous Direct Reincarnations. I've posted George Washington reincarnated as Robert E. Lee (deleted) Freemasonry and Reincarnation (?) and The Science of Reincarnation. Check them out. There on other forums as well.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

What evidence "at hand" would you consider "substantial?" Please cite and summarize the most convincing of this evidence for discussion.

I was referencing what formed Carl Sagan's comment ... I mean there must be some reason he advocates an investigation of that and not, say, invisible pink unicorns, santa claus or the FSM .... which is what I assume many posters here place it on par with.

There's literally tons out there.
A few more from google

here' s a short collection from Is there any proof of reincarnation? onwards
http://www.lifescript.com/Soul/Spiri...carnation.aspx

Here's a more recent example
http://greglefever.blogspot.com/2009...plenty-of.html

and another
http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm324796.html

Now, in what ways are these claims unsubstantial?

Which of these is the most convincing?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Which of these is the most convincing?

They are all much the same - ie people being able to recount information or exhibit abilities (such as mono-linguist speaking a second language fluently with a regional accent) which stand outside of their capabilities.

My time is limited and I may get an opportunity to peruse one of these. Hence the question. If I can only read one, which would you recommend?

I'm also curious why you seemed confident that substantial evidence was pre-existent only to subsequently Google it for us after being asked your opinion of the most convincing of the "substantial" evidence.

I'll respond to your comments about Sagan calling for investigation as well. When time permits.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

It's called scepticism. Refusing to believe that which is unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is not a pronouncement that this or that is wrong or should not be studied. It is call for exactly the opposite. Show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Which is why the first point I address is

Or as Herbert Spencer says quite to the point ...

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

And you have quite seriously misunderstood Spencer, who would have known well the difference between closed mindedness and skepticism.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean you have persons who had no way to know about minute details in a far away location in a different time and your initial response is more or less "they are all obviously hoaxes".

Never did I make that assertion. Quote me.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I mean fair enough if you want to believe that, but please show us the evidence and let us judge. If the evidence is weak, seek to strengthen it yourself. It is not upon us to do this, it is upon you to convince us.

Oh wow I totally see what you did right there.

Ophiolite already said it, burden of evidence is always on the person with the novel claim. If we had to refute every brain fart we ever encountered we'd spend our lives doing other people's work for them.

then feel free to explain why the evidence at hand is insubstantial

What evidence? All you've got are non-scientific websites filled with testimonials and anecdotes. Do I really need to explain why those are no good?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

What evidence "at hand" would you consider "substantial?" Please cite and summarize the most convincing of this evidence for discussion.

There's literally tons out there.

here' s a short collection from Is there any proof of reincarnation? onwards
http://www.lifescript.com/Soul/Spiri...carnation.aspx

Reading this what we discover is this: Hinduism is really old; lots of people believe in reincarnation; and, if you fantasize really hard, you can too.

You clearly aren't qualified to participate in this discussion if this is what you consider "evidence." Particularly if this is what you consider among the most convincing.

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Originally Posted by ox

Going back about 20 years there was a study which suggested that there are more people alive today than have ever existed before.

What study? I believe that statement to be wrong.

Behind every man now alive stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living. Since the dawn of time, roughly a hundred billion human beings have walked the planet Earth, in 1968, when the world's population was 3.5 billion. (Arthur C. Clarke)

(And since 1968 a few billion more have died taking the total up to about 106 billion.)

Google 'How many people have ever lived on earth' and you will get a breakdown by century.
I don't believe in reincarnation. This dogma is a cross between wishful thinking and a desire to keep the peace. It's an example of how the masses can be fooled. If you believe in life after death, that's another thing, but it's a waste of time thinking about it too much as you can't prove it one way or the other.