Past Lives

Is science the only answer to everything? If so, why?

 

I completely agree with the statement above. Since there's lack of evidence, I reject the idea completely, unless someone can provide some good evidence.

 

What would be some good evidence?

 

Any study which takes this into detail, without logic pitfalls*.

Also, if it's true, we should be able to prove its existence. Either mathematically or logically. I'm sorry if I'm too rational. :lol: Don't care much for the emotional aspect to be honest.

* Circular reasoning for instance (it is true, because it is true), experiences (not trustworthy), untrue conclusions (since it is not A, it MUST be B)

 

Then there's no good evidence for anything in the natural world, because science is based on incomplete induction, which is an inconsistent method of reasoning, and on deduction, a consistent method of reasoning, but based on arbitrary premises. Maths are consistent indeed, but they are based on axioms, which are technically arbitrary.

 

I simply asked for a study without logic pitfalls. Shouldn't be that difficult when it's true.

By experiences, I mean personal experiences a.k.a. person opinions (I know my English is quite bad sometimes).

Anyways, back to your reasoning (off-topic, I didn't ask for this whatsoever):

because science is based on incomplete induction
> Proof? Source? Study?

And on deduction, a consistent method of reasoning, but based on arbitrary premises.
> Proof? Source? Study?

Maths are consistent indeed, but they are based on axioms, which are technically arbitrary.
> Proof? Source? Study?

I don't want to run into a discussion.. If you feel like it, answer it on my wall. :icon_wink

 

I just want to suggest you that if you have science as your only source of knowledge it would be helpful for yourself to know the logical basis of it, because the topics you're asking for proofs, sources or studies of are well-known to any person who have studied mathematical logic or epistemology.

 

They are indeed so well-known. I'm interested. Place them on my wall and I'll review them. If they are so well-known, you should find them quite easily. I'll see them.

Now let's get back on topic. I already asked you to place it on my profile wall but it seems like you didn't.

 

To be honest, this idea is more comforting to me than any other kind of afterlife. While I would prefer to believe in it, I can't.

 

That's also how I feel about it. I think Hinduism has an interesting point of view on past lives. :icon_bigg But I can't believe in it either.

 

Here's a free online course of Introduction to Logic, it would be a good start.

https://www.coursera.org/course/intrologic

Whenever I have more spare time I'll pass by your wall to chat at more depth.

 

I believe it has some interesting things, but your source is still vague. I asked for a few particular statements you made. And you give a source which is about logic... See what I mean? You actually throw me to a huge website whereas I ask for a tiny bit. Although the website is useful itself.

Statements like Maths are consistent are vague. And science is based on incomplete induction, I have the feeling you left out certain expects of it.

What you said is simply untrue, that's what I tried to point out:

Me:
Any study which takes this into detail, without logic pitfalls*.

You:
Then there's no good evidence for anything in the natural world, [...]

I already know there's no good evidence for anything, but that's not really my point. If you except the very basics, axioms and such, you can build yourself a way up. So I ask about a study which talks about "past lives" in detail. I hope to see some studies which have good logical reasoning and such.. I hope you get what I mean. :icon_bigg

 

Yep. That's why I like what someone else posted - it's a much less religious and more scientific point of view, but it still explains how one life becomes another.

 

I point out the website because you need to understand what is logically consistent reasoning, induction, deduction, and incomplete induction for a start, and that course include those topics. Don't disregard something just because it's against what you believe in. Googleing "consistency in science" should surely give you a lot of info (on which I cannot extend a lot now, in a few hours maybe).

When you know what consistency is then it will not be vague because consistency is a strictly defined term.

What aspects?

If you say you know there's no good evidence for anything how is it then possible that what I said is untrue, it seems a contradiction from your part, unless you were not talking about that sentece and I misunderstand you.

Of course we can do that with religion too, taking their dogmas as philosophical truths to start with, or with whatever way of thinking by the way.

It's all right, you have all your right to believe in whatever you do, just like any of us, and I understand you need some sort of math or scientific "proof" to believe in things, but I have never opposed that fact. My point, every time I talk about this, at the deep end is just try to show that all we believe is ultimately based of faith on something (in your case, in science and/or math as the only path to truth).

 

Not to make this topic messy, I'll reply on your wall. :icon_wink

 

I believe in past lives. I meditated once when lying in bed and got to a state when I kinda left my body and then fell asleep. I had a very vivid dream and when I woke up I don't know why but I somewhat "knew" that it was a recollection of something that really happened to me ca. 70 years ago. Over the years the memory of it has lessened but whether it was real or not I still believe in past lives. It helps me to understand the concept of soul mates or to explain why I don't fancy some people instantly, just when seeing them. Also, I have a theory that we're mostly reborn having the same sex, but when incarnating in the opposite sex it may lead to homosexuality or gender identity issues. (In that "dream" of mine I was a man) :icon_wink.

 

I believe in past lives: surely trillions of unique individual people is impossible, they have to be reused and repeated throughout time?

 

Yeah I get you and see where you're coming from
But surely you run out of combinations and you start to get 'repeat people' (ahaa) who have the same looks & characteristics. I mean there are only so many personality traits and looks and therefore only so many combinations...?
I know this is highly theoretical but trillions of people... surely there are 'repeat people' in there..?

P.s. I like your 'drift' pun, as in snow drift aha nice work!

 

People aren't all that significant, you know. Just biological systems, and not so different from, say, rocks, when you come down to it. However, there are a large number of combinations of the person variables, large enough to accommodate everyone who's ever lived. And seeing as how someone's experiences contribute to their character, and time is linear rather than cyclical*, everyone is unique. And even if there were some repeats, why should that mean that there are past lives? Why not just random combinations of variables that occasionally combine in the same way. The idea that they are reused requires that a person be a soul, a concept that there is no evidence for, and one I reject.

*some people may disagree. Admittedly, some cultures and faiths hold that time does repeat every few thousand years. I think this is bullshit. But if you disagree, thats a whole different conversation.