Garth, where is your evidence for human reincarnation?

[seer]

You suggest that scripture is suspect because it contains extra natural events. But as far as I can see human reincarnation is an extra natural event. Do you have proof to the contrary?


Also Garth, we do we need to keep comming back? What is the purpose? And who's purpose is it?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149455#post149455)
seer:

You suggest that scripture is suspect because it contains extra natural events. But as far as I can see human reincarnation is an extra natural event. Do you have proof to the contrary?


Also Garth, we do we need to keep comming back? What is the purpose? And who's purpose is it?

I will need you to specifically define what (non-circular) criteria you use to determine whether or not things are natural or supernatural.

As I said in the last thread, I will need specific criteria to meet so that you cannot merely retreat into solipsism.

Also, I did not assert that "we need to keep coming back," that is obviously your own projected conceptualization of reincarnation, and not a belief that I necessarily will be held to.

When I feel that the definitions and criteria are sufficiently established, I will attempt to fulfill the criteria according to the definitions. If I find that your definitions conflict with your criteria, I won't waste my time.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Firstly, number 1 is not how I believe reincarnation to work, so I will not be held to it. Second, what would you accept as a "conclusive" demonstration that a man alive today has had a past life? ”

There is none.
Well that was easy. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

For every past experience that he could relate as proof he could have gotten from other sources i.e. Book, letters, oral tradition,etc... So I guess you take it by faith?
Quite the contrary in that you've already assumed your conclusion "by faith."

So tell me how does reincarnation work? How does the information of a past life get into this new life?
To put it simply, all events are simultaneous, and therefore all incarnations are simultaneous. Information is transferred psychically according to the needs of the individual personality and the context in which it exists.

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

“ Firstly, number 1 is not how I believe reincarnation to work, so I will not be held to it. Second, what would you accept as a "conclusive" demonstration that a man alive today has had a past life? ” ”



There is none. ”


Well that was easy. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

“ For every past experience that he could relate as proof he could have gotten from other sources i.e. Book, letters, oral tradition,etc... So I guess you take it by faith? ”


Quite the contrary in that you've already assumed your conclusion "by faith."

No Garth, really, present your evidence. My assumptions mean nothing if you have the facts.

So tell me how does reincarnation work? How does the information of a past life get into this new life? ”


To put it simply, all events are simultaneous, and therefore all incarnations are simultaneous. Information is transferred psychically according to the needs of the individual personality and the context in which it exists.

1.My experience tells me that events are not necessarily simultaneous. That many events happen in succession. That there is a real past and real present. If you have clear evidence to the contrary please present it.

2. How is this information transferred "psychically" apart from an extra natural event? In other words can science show how this information is passed through the natural order of things?

BTW Garth you said this in our other thread: "Quite not, in fact. Everything I believe to exist, I believe exists naturally and behaves naturally."


Then you should be able to show me (naturally) how information is transferred psychically from one indivudal to another...

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 04:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149560#post149560)
seer:

No Garth, really, present your evidence.
But you've already told me that there is none that will suffice for you. Why are you trying to waste my time?

My assumptions mean nothing if you have the facts.
Your assumptions are integral since I think some of them must be first called into question before you'll realize that the facts are, in fact, fact.


1.My experience tells me that events are not necessarily simultaneous. That many events happen in succession. That there is a real past and real present. If you have clear evidence to the contrary please present it.
General Relativity. Time is a result of your own subjective persepctive on a given event, all events happen in the now-moment, and your position and velocity relative to that now-moment create the experience of time. In other words you create time, it is not an objective property of the universe.

2. How is this information transferred "psychically" apart from an extra natural event? In other words can science show how this information is passed through the natural order of things?
"Transferred" was a rather inappropriate term, and it should rather be regarded as "shared" since each reincanational personality shares the same psyche.

BTW Garth you said this in our other thread: "Quite not, in fact. Everything I believe to exist, I believe exists naturally and behaves naturally."

Then you should be able to show me (naturally) how information is transferred psychically from one indivudal to another...

Well, aside from the fact that I do not have a clear understanding of how you seperate the natural from the supernatural, it should be rather obvious that information is naturally shared by all portions of the individual psyche.

Yours,
Garth

[Barron]

Hey Garth!

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150117#post150117)
garthoverman:

General Relativity. Time is a result of your own subjective persepctive on a given event, all events happen in the now-moment, and your position and velocity relative to that now-moment create the experience of time. In other words you create time, it is not an objective property of the universe.


Either "subjective" or "result" needs to be changed in that description. Time is a coordinate (like distance), so it is not a result of anything more than it's existence. Our experience of time passing and such is the subjective experience of time. All events happen "now" only in a local sense. One of the big shifts of GR (well SR really) was that absolute simultaneity was destroyed. That is, no two events that don't happen at the same physical location can be called universally simulataneous. If they are physically seperated there will be certain frames of reference where they are simulateous and others where they are not.

Time (as humans experience it) is clearly created by thay human experience, but time itself is a feature of the universe. It'd work just fine if we never existed (that is, particles would still decay and all). At least that's what a geeky physicist would tell you. There are some more subtle points about measuring time, but I'll butt out now and let you guys discuss this.

Barron (will geek for food!)

[seer]

..."Transferred" was a rather inappropriate term, and it should rather be regarded as "shared" since each reincanational personality shares the same psyche.

Well tell me how a psyche goes from one person to another - naturally.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150455#post150455)
seer:

..."Transferred" was a rather inappropriate term, and it should rather be regarded as "shared" since each reincanational personality shares the same psyche.

Well tell me how a psyche goes from one person to another - naturally.
Where did I say that they did? If you'll actually read the last four words of the part of my post you quoted (and perhaps contemplate it for a moment) you should eventually come to understand why your request is nonsensical.

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

Where did I say that they did? If you'll actually read the last four words of the part of my post you quoted (and perhaps contemplate it for a moment) you should eventually come to understand why your request is nonsensical.

Ok you said:

..."Transferred" was a rather inappropriate term, and it should rather be regarded as "shared" since each reincanational personality shares the same psyche.

What does that mean? Here is a definition of reincarnation:

"the action of reincarnating : the state of being reincarnated b : rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; especially : a rebirth of a soul in a new human body."

Is that what you believe?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150849#post150849)
seer:



Ok you said:

..."Transferred" was a rather inappropriate term, and it should rather be regarded as "shared" since each reincanational personality shares the same psyche.

What does that mean?
It means exactly what it says. All the reincarnational personalities of an entity share the same psyche. What part of that is unclear?

Here is a definition of reincarnation:

"the action of reincarnating : the state of being reincarnated b : rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; especially : a rebirth of a soul in a new human body."

Is that what you believe?
I think rebirth relies too much on a uni-directional and linear conceptualization of time. Additionally, incarnations are not necessarily always human in the way we classically regard it.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 11:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150219#post150219)
Barron:

Hey Garth!

Either "subjective" or "result" needs to be changed in that description. Time is a coordinate (like distance), so it is not a result of anything more than it's existence. Our experience of time passing and such is the subjective experience of time.
In this case I am speaking specifically of the experience of time, not the coordinates we abstract from that experience.

All events happen "now" only in a local sense. One of the big shifts of GR (well SR really) was that absolute simultaneity was destroyed.
I'm also specifically speaking of temporal simultaneity and not necessarily spatial simultaneity, and further regarding it in an experiential sense. Everything an individual experiences occurs at the same place & time: that of the present moment. In other words the personal reality of each individual transpires for all of them in the same relative place and time. The appearance of spatial and temporal seperation are merely the result of the relative position and velocity of that thing/event to the individual's present moment.

That is, no two events that don't happen at the same physical location can be called universally simulataneous. If they are physically seperated there will be certain frames of reference where they are simulateous and others where they are not.
In an objective sense, yes, I understand and agree with you.

Time (as humans experience it) is clearly created by thay human experience, but time itself is a feature of the universe.
Well, obviously because human experience is a feature of the universe.

It'd work just fine if we never existed (that is, particles would still decay and all). At least that's what a geeky physicist would tell you. There are some more subtle points about measuring time, but I'll butt out now and let you guys discuss this.
I take issue with the assumption that things will continue to operate normally if we ceased to exist. From my perspective, if someone is to assume that they are non-existent such that they cannot observe reality nor be a part of it, then as far as that individual is concerned, reality doesn't exist at all. I might say that things will continue to work as I currently observer them if YOU didn't exist, or if someone else didn't exist, but if I presume that I don't exist, it is meaningless to make assertions regarding a reality that doesn't exist for me in my supposed state.

Barron (will geek for food!)
Here, have a snausage! :smile:

Yours,
Garth

[Barron]

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=151069#post151069)
garthoverman:

I take issue with the assumption that things will continue to operate normally if we ceased to exist. From my perspective, if someone is to assume that they are non-existent such that they cannot observe reality nor be a part of it, then as far as that individual is concerned, reality doesn't exist at all. I might say that things will continue to work as I currently observer them if YOU didn't exist, or if someone else didn't exist, but if I presume that I don't exist, it is meaningless to make assertions regarding a reality that doesn't exist for me in my supposed state.


That's a bit of my physicist "realism" sneaking in. I forget that you speak more about the experience of the individual where I tend to want to get individuals out of the picture. I still think all quantum consciousness models are hopelessly flawed, and that human consciousness plays no special part in physics (but, of course, it's hugely important to humans).

Mmmm... Snausages!:joy:

Barron

[seer]

It means exactly what it says. All the reincarnational personalities of an entity share the same psyche. What part of that is unclear?

Ok, then show us how this psyche goes from one personality to another. Prove, by natural means, that the psyche I now have was once in a different personality.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=151283#post151283)
seer:

Ok, then show us how this psyche goes from one personality to another. Prove, by natural means, that the psyche I now have was once in a different personality.
It perplexes me that you have repeatedly requested to be convinced of this, yet have already confessed yourself that no evidence would convince you. Why are you wasting my time?

Yours,
Garth