Thread: PAST LIVES - A LOGICAL PROOF

Whilst musing one day I came across a line of logic which appeared to prove the existence of past lives.

I goes like this -

There have been many reported incidences of past lives and
Near Death Experiences (NDE's). Millions, in fact, throughout history. This in itself is not the proof I found. However, it does draw ones attention to the fact that the human mind has had and does have these thoughts/visions/NDE's! This is not disputed and, of course, does not constitute a proof of anything just yet.

But one must ask, however, - where do these thoughts/visions/NDE's come from? (e.g. one event/experience within the Near Death Experience is the viewing of past lives. This takes the form of reviewing one's life by looking into a polished shield, water surface, film screen, television screen etc...) They are in the mind and they manifest themselves when close to death. It is accompanied by a highly organised multiple serious of steps and procedures within the Near Death Experience. The precise sequences are not the random flashing lights of a disintegrating dying brain. No way!
The experience is reported to be a crystal clear experience and apparently very real. But again this is not the proof which satisfied me.

There should be an evolutionary process which causes this trait to evolve and happen throughout the whole of humanity! Please note - the following is actually the core of my argument! Just before any mortal dies he experiences a Near Death Experience. So generally no significant physical breeding can take place after the onset of a Near Death Experience. Any possible evolutionary chain is totally broken on the physical death of the being. So spiritual matters like reincarnation and NDE's can never be transfered/evolved in this way!

But the only way that spiritual matters and the NDE's can be evolved is by some evolutionary system. And - this means that there must be spiritual evolution.

As there is spiritual evolutionthen there is definitely reincarnation/past lives etc. QED

Harry Schneider

Yes it's a ponder, now are you suggesting that memories can be transferred through the DNA? and 're-surface' in a future generation?

If so you are suggesting that DNA can be re-programmed 'on the fly' from memories in the brain, and somehow this is communicated to the sexual reproductive organs to allow new sperm/eggs to be programmed.

As I understand it, a newborn female has all the eggs she will ever need to reproduce and therefore does not 'make' them as required. I believe that sperm is made on 'on the fly' (or should that be underneath?) meaning only past lives as a man would be possible.

Although I am highly skeptical of memories being passed on, I do see the possiblity of testing for this, take a set of identical triplets raise two together and the third totally seperate, collect and store DNA from all three at regular intervals. Although raised seperately all three must have exactly the same meals, and diet.

Then after some 25 years or so check the DNA.

I am not suggesting that 'memories can be transferred through the DNA.' That is the whole point of the theory. THEY CAN NOT BE TRANSFERRED THROUGH THE DNA! That being the case reincarnation/visions/experiences can therefore only be transferred through a spiritual evolution system. This implies that spiritual evolution occurs and also that a spiritual realm exists. How it happens, heaven only knows. (not that I believe in 'heaven'.)

Harry Schneider :wink:

Sorry,

I Automatically assumed you were looking to discuss the possibilities of memories being transferred from one life to another across a period of time. Not believing for one moment in mumbo jumbo I assumed that this would be by a direct genetic route. what you have there is not a theory
as there is simply no hard data to coincide with it, it is not even a hypothesis as there is no support for re-incarnation.

A hyposthesis has to be a possibility within science as it is.

Thus "God moved the item from A to B" is NOT an hypothesis BUT
"The item was blown from A to B by the prevailing wind" IS.

You are aboslutley correct. It is not a theory but a proof by contradiction.
OK - There is no hard data to support the first premise of the proof only millions of written and anecdotal statements made throughout history. I do not dismiss these statements out of hand. I accept that they exist. In itself they are not proofs but a small section of the proof relies on the fact that they exist.

Harry Schneider

Everybody dreams, if everybody decided to say "I think my dreams are me being transported into the future, or visions of a parallel existence somewhere else" would that make it any more likely that either of these scenarios exist?

Dreams can seem real, very real, I remember in one very reaistic one finding a suitcase stuffed with money, I took it home placed it under my bed and went to sleep. When I woke up (in the real world) I actually found myself totally and utterly illogically looking for this case, to this day I still think my wife took it!

Whatever one human says they have, there will always be others who jump on the wagon. One person says "I lived another life in Ireland 200 years ago" then others will catch on.

The only way I could see that 'past lives' are even remotely possible is that we are a program in an alien computer, a sort of very advanced runescape where the players are programmed to believe they really exist. The extent of the universe is the boundary of the computer memory. In this characters are recycled but a bug means sometimes not all of the original character is erased.

'Flame' remark withdrawn.

Originally Posted by harryschneider

Ouch!

Can it be I have prompted him to think further?

Does he now know there is a plausible explanation not involving spirits or DNA ?

Is our knowledge only due to enhancements to the program initially being accessed by 'the discoverer'

Will we one day see written across the sky "This simulation has performed an illegal exception and will be closed down, all unsaved characters will be lost" ??????

8)

Flame remark withdrawn. My apologies.

I withdraw my retaliatory 'flame' remarks. It's quite silly of me to take amusement from that sort of activity. It wastes everyone's time with their understandable retaliation. Every one should be trying to understand one another's point of view. Please accept my apologies.

Harry Schneider

:wink:

Originally Posted by harryschneider

You may not believe the details of the post but at least you now know from reading the post how things actually work. There is no way you can 'unread' what you have read!
Eventual realisation and acceptance will come to you sometime I'm sure. Try to be patient.

So unusual to see the self deluded recognise their own delusion. :wink:

There are many examples of individuals who recall names and events from those of a recently deceased individual - details that can be corroborated - that are presented in the first person.

Those recollections of individuals about past lives from longer ago are virtually impossible to corroborate. Some value, however, can be placed on these when the individual experiences a measurable personal gain or benefit through having recalled the 'information'.

If there is genetic transmission of some memories (quite conceivable) then some of this could be explained that way. However some recollections are from events just prior to death, and therefor could not be transfered genetically. Equally many recollections can be shown to have no genetic connection.

Conventional science doen't present explanations for these situations. Any hypothesis addressing these events could therefore not reside within conventional thinking - and would not need to anyway.

One explanation is the existence of a 'spirit', however this does not necessarily have to be the only explanation.

Sadly the tendency in all such situations is to reject information that does not fit within an agreed model - it is always thus. This is the 'comfortable' and 'conventional' view to take. For now 'conventional' science is untroubled by these observations and can therefore keep a 'safe' if cowardly distance. After all, scientists have to convince their paymasters that their work has value.....