Hey FrGamble!

Quote: rxwine

Also this:

Quote:

The 33 Million Gods of Hinduism

It costs about the same to have one fake god as to have 33 million, or seven hundred quintillion, of them.

So why not have them by the bushel?

Quote: pew

I don't get it. Are you saying that we have a non corporeal soul?

Are you a body with a soul or a soul with
a body. Are you a consciousness receiver
or a consciousness producer.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/

Quote: Evenbob

Are you a body with a soul or a soul with
a body. Are you a consciousness receiver
or a consciousness producer.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/

The article didn't seem to me to be a constant cohesive thought dialogue, more abstract than convincing?

Where he says this in the 2nd paragraph "I noted how often he talked about the need to reduce the suffering of “all living beings” and not just “all people.” It seems to me that he has made a subjective definition of suffering, and judged it as something to always be avoided. The clinic is trying to get me to acknowledge suffering without judging it, as to whether or not it is good or bad, just accept that "it is".

Later this: "Conveniently, this viewpoint rules out all but one species, Homo sapiens (which has an ineradicable desire to come out on top)," Is he claiming it is only sapiens that wish to come out on top? That is some fluffy, faux , I'm smarter than you baloney there. What animal capable of fight or flight doesn't wish to "come out on top"?

And again: "Darwin was after all a naturalist with uncanny powers of observation—he concluded that there was no absolute threshold between lower and higher animals, including humans, that assigned higher mental powers to one but not to the other." WTF, Like I said, this piece lacks cohesion.

Off on some tangent here: "Given the lack of a clear and compelling Rubicon separating simple from complex animals and simple from complex behaviors, the belief that only humans are capable of experiencing anything consciously seems preposterous", dogs dream, predators plan, whales work together, "Rubicon" my behind.

I read the rest, it didn't make a lot of sense to me. I hope this isn't his signature pieae? You write better than this guy, which makes me wonder if you even read it, before linking it?

Quote: petroglyph

which makes me wonder if you even read it, before linking it?

I never link anything I haven't read first.
He makes lots of excellent points. Carl
Jung coined the phrase 'collective
consciousness' to explain how we are
influenced by what might be called a
universal consciousness. And no, it has
nothing to do with any god.

The problem remains that a supernatural phenomenon is being assigned as a cause to some unexplained phenomena, when there is no evidence that the supernatural phenomena even exists or has anything to do with the unexplained phenomena.

I've already put forth my supernatural explaination for reincarnation - they are thoughts and memories transmitted from living mind to living mind, occasionally bubbling up into people's conscious thoughts, or made heard through hypnotic regression. No soul, no reincarnation, but it sure looks like a good explaination to me for an unexplained phenomena.

Mix in a bunch of random variation, cooincidence, and confirmation bias and you're good to go.

But that might just be the invisible unicorn shaking his horn and making me type.

Quote: Dalex64

I've already put forth my supernatural explaination for reincarnation - they are thoughts and memories transmitted from living mind to living mind, occasionally bubbling up into people's conscious thoughts, or made heard through hypnotic regression.

You really are totally ignorant on the work
of the U of V on this, aren't you. Which is
what the child studies are about. If you
knew what the research entailed, you
wouldn't be making ignorant statements
like that. I'm tired of trying to wise you
up, it's a waste of time. Either study some
of the relevant material, or just admit you
have no idea what's going on here. Your
comments show you're clueless. Hypnotic
regression, good god. The project was
started 55 years ago because regression
was considered useless voodoo, and you
think they embrace it? Unbelievable.

Their idea requires that there is a soul that can carry memories and some medium in which it must exist. Are we supposed to take their existance as a matter of faith?

Or does reincarnation prove there is a soul, which proves that reincarnation is possible? What is that called again? Circular logic?

I am sorry you find this so frustrating. I have read much about this, so your claims that I am ignorant are false.

I disagree with the conclusion, and see many unfalsifiable things or things that can not be proved associated with it. I'm not sorry that I am not jumping on your bandwagon on this subject.

Quote: FrGamble

What about millions and millions of people, unrelated, adults and children, from all over the world, telling the same provable stories of encountering the real presence of Jesus Christ in their lives,



It really should.

Since Hindus were mentioned - billions of them have believed in reincarnation. What makes them wrong?

Quote: Dalex64

The problem remains that a supernatural phenomenon is being assigned as a cause to some unexplained phenomena, when there is no evidence that the supernatural phenomena even exists or has anything to do with the unexplained phenomena.

I've already put forth my supernatural explaination for reincarnation - they are thoughts and memories transmitted from living mind to living mind, occasionally bubbling up into people's conscious thoughts, or made heard through hypnotic regression. No soul, no reincarnation, but it sure looks like a good explaination to me for an unexplained phenomena.

Mix in a bunch of random variation, cooincidence, and confirmation bias and you're good to go.

But that might just be the invisible unicorn shaking his horn and making me type.

Bob, I have to agree with Dalex here. You are not only falling into circular logic but are also falling into the "God of the gaps" mentality. We can't explain why these children have such vivid and correct memories of other people so it must be reincarnation. My explanation might be the communion of the saints or the mercy of God who wants people to know their loved one who died suddenly or tragically is okay and uses the innocence of children to communicate that. I have heard others say it is the Devil using an opportunity to lead people astray by tricking them into believing in reincarnation (I don't think that last one is true). Anyway, I hope you don't get so upset but rather take it as a good lesson in the limits of science. I have no doubt these scientists did the best they could in investigating these claims. They present their findings and the philosopher/theologian in us takes it from there. For Dalex who does not believe in the soul or the spiritual (I think) he comes up with his own explanation. You really like the idea of reincarnation so that is what you go with. My beliefs point me in another direction. Now, and this is important, we are not all correct. This is not a subjective truth, one of us is correct, but the evidence can only go so far our belief takes over from there. This is how it always works.

Science shows us the facts of this world. Material things have a cause, the universe is expanding, you can't have an infinite regress (that last one is more philosophy than science) and I say this all points us to the existence of God. You say that this points us to eternally existing material (a logical impossibility), others say it points to a multiverse (which does not answer the question) or spontaneous creation out of nothing without a cause (harder to believe than God). We all live by faith supported by science.

Quote: Dalex64

Their idea requires that there is a soul that can carry memories and some medium in which it must exist.

Where do you think the memories come from, magic?
And you do NOT understand the work of these people
or you never would have used hypnotic regression in
reference to them. They have been opposed to it since
the start, it's totally corruptible. This research is not.