Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sir Edmund Haley famously said 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.
Yes, but Christopher Hitchens also famously said "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
If "There is an absence of evidence" is ones sole criteria for viewing a proposition as even remotely credible.... have you ANY idea at all just how many fantastical and even comical propositions you would start subscribing to?
The very way the majority of people act the majority of the time clearly shows that while a statement like 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' sounds good on paper, or when trotted out on internet forums, it is actually as useless as it is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredNotBob
There's no evidence to support the existence of life on other planets, and yet we still search for it.
Aha, but that is because there IS evidence of life on other planets.
Us.
We are a sample set that the concept of life on planets is true. Our very existence shows that life exists on planets. Maybe there is none on other planets. I do not know. But to say there is "no evidence" is clearly patently false.
The problem people have with concepts like gods or reincarnation is that there is NO evidence of them. We do not even have a sample set of ONE like we do with life on planets to go on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlewitness
Based upon my foundation belief in Jesus Christ resurrected, there is absolutely no evidence, physical or spiritual, to support such a frightening view of life.
Then you make my point for me, while making none of your own. Because you simply beg the question by asserting it in support of it. You have provided no support whatsoever in the resurrection you speak of.
Supporting reincarnation or resurrection by simply making up a single case of it does not an argument make son.
Supporting an assertion by restating the assertion is simply soap boxing. But do keep trying.
I dont believe in reincarnation because I believe what God said to Adam in the Bible at Genesis 3:19: "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return." So at death, Adam returned to the dust according to God’s clear statement on the matter. So then at death we are not reborn as someone else but cease to exist. Death is the opposite of life jJust as heat and cold, dry and wet, light and dark are opposites. Yes, when we die, we are actually dead. Justthat simple.
But then, some people's recollections of past lives must have other explanations. The workings of the human mind, including the subconscious, and the effects of medication or traumatic experiences are still not fully understood. Dreams and imagined events based on the colossal amount of information stored in the memory bank of the brain can be so vivid that they appear to be real. In some cases, wicked spirit forces create uncanny experiences that can make the unreal appear real.—1 Samuel 28:7-19. And it is natural for us to want to keep living into the future. But where did that desire come from? The Bible says that God "has also set eternity in the hearts of men." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Maybe that is why so many people want to believe in reincarnation, since it romanticizes a genuine desire to live indefinitely.
I dont believe in reincarnation because I believe what God said to Adam in the Bible at Genesis 3:19: "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return." So at death, Adam returned to the dust according to God’s clear statement on the matter. So then at death we are not reborn as someone else but cease to exist. Death is the opposite of life jJust as heat and cold, dry and wet, light and dark are opposites. Yes, when we die, we are actually dead. Justthat simple.
But then, some people's recollections of past lives must have other explanations. The workings of the human mind, including the subconscious, and the effects of medication or traumatic experiences are still not fully understood. Dreams and imagined events based on the colossal amount of information stored in the memory bank of the brain can be so vivid that they appear to be real. In some cases, wicked spirit forces create uncanny experiences that can make the unreal appear real.—1 Samuel 28:7-19. And it is natural for us to want to keep living into the future. But where did that desire come from? The Bible says that God "has also set eternity in the hearts of men." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Maybe that is why so many people want to believe in reincarnation, since it romanticizes a genuine desire to live indefinitely.
If it's dust you are already, and you'll return to dust - why doesn't that mean you won't change substantially at all?
Aha, but that is because there IS evidence of life on other planets.
Us.
A specious argument, at best.
Note the bold: other planets. Of course we have evidence that life exists here -- we're it, and I'm willing to bet we're reasonably self-aware and realize that.
We have not yet found any conclusive evidence that life exists elsewhere, or is even capable of existing given the standards we set for judging what 'life' is.
You're also conflating the concept of 'non-presence' with that of 'non-existence'. You are, given available evidence, not in the room beside me. Yet you clearly exist, in some form (though you may be a computer program, that's a subject for a Turing Test and not germaine to the discussion). 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'; that I have no evidence to support that you exist does not draw the conclusion that you do not exist.
Quite the contrary. If you want to evidence the existence of X then finding other examples of X very much lends a modicum of credibility to your claims. Not a massive amount by any means, nor would I claim that, but certainly some.
The point being that comparing the credibility of life on other planets to the credibility of reincarnation simply falls on it's face, and you along with it.
Life exists so the claim that life exists elsewhere holds some credibility.
Yet currently EVERYTHING we know links consciousness inextricably to the brain. NOTHING we currently know even suggests a separation between the two that allows for subjectivity or human consciousness or human experience to survive between incarnations and brains.
I think you both, Fred and Nozz, are arguing over semantics. The earth is evidence of life on planets, but not evidence of life on other planets. The earth with life establishes the possibility of other planets with life, but real evidence of life on other planets requires marks of life on other planets, such as petroleum or fossils or complex organic matter even arranged into cells with self-replicatable material.
I think you both, Fred and Nozz, are arguing over semantics. The earth is evidence of life on planets, but not evidence of life on other planets.
Yet it certainly lends credibility to the idea. It shows that nothing about the idea in any way goes against the things we know to be true or real. The point of the comparison is to show that nothing about reincarnation seems to be in any way grounded in reality at all.
Yet it certainly lends credibility to the idea. It shows that nothing about the idea in any way goes against the things we know to be true or real. The point of the comparison is to show that nothing about reincarnation seems to be in any way grounded in reality at all.
I'll stipulate to that, but also add that six hundred years ago, the idea of a giant metal tube flying through the air wasn't considered realistic, either.
My point was that just because there's no evidence to support a claim doesn't necessarily mean that we should discount it entirely; nature has proven us wrong before, after all.
My point was that just because there's no evidence to support a claim doesn't necessarily mean that we should discount it entirely; nature has proven us wrong before, after all.
I would disagree there. If an idea is entirely unsubstantiated then I do dismiss it entirely until such time as substantiation is found. Yes we have been wrong before, but we simply update out idea set when that happens.
A fear of being left red faced should not license us to lend credence where otherwise none is warranted.
But on the topic of reincarnation which this thread is about, not life on other planets, the claim is more than merely unsubstantiated.
EVERYTHING we currently know about the mind-brain connection suggests consciousness is entirely connected to and centered on the brain.
NOTHING we currently know suggests there can be, or is, a divide.
So while we may disagree on unsubstantiated evidence neutral ideas being dismissed or not.... when an idea is not only unsubstantiated but also appears to go entirely against everything we do think true.... then it is a different conversation entirely. Reincarnation is not just unsubstantiated therefore.... it is in negative equity of credibility.
Which is why I felt a comparison to life on other planets to be a poor analogy at best.
I would disagree there. If an idea is entirely unsubstantiated then I do dismiss it entirely until such time as substantiation is found.
There are documented cases of children that have spoken of places that they have never been, and never seen, with remarkable accuracy. I'm not saying to take it all at face value, but something causes it.
If you're looking for solid proof, then I'm sorry to say that you're probably going to be waiting a while. We don't understand the human brain half as well as we'd like, and the evidence may very well be waiting for us sometime down the road.
I stand by my previous assertion: that simply because we haven't found evidence does not mean that no evidence exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
