When a radio brakes down, it stops broadcasting content because it no longer has the capacity to do so. But the content itself is still received and transmitted by other radios. The existence of the content doesn't depend on the existence of the radio. If there is something eternal about we humans, I believe it is what flows through us rather than us.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Our brains transmit data through human communication but they are above all data receivers. They receive data from the outside world. Doesn't this data exist before the human brain even does? And what is this data made of Dexter Sinister? Matter? Energy? Intelligence itself? All of the above?
I don't have any answers to these questions but here are some thoughts.
From my point of view, it's a blatant fallacy to assume intelligence and consciousness are an exclusively human phenomenon. The fact that we humans are conscious and intelligent is good enough proof to me that consciousness and intelligence are an inherent potentiality of the universe. If it wouldn't be in the nature of the universe to be a breeding ground for intelligence, there would be no humans wondering about what happens when they die.
The potentiality of intelligence existed before life on earth even started and that to me is an unavoidable fact. You simply can't state otherwise. Or at least I don't think you can without making a serious logical mistake.
So where is the evidence that the soul does not live on? Our body is just a vehicle S.J. and that is all, just because the vehicle gives up the ghost has no bearing on the rest of us.
That is right. Your point is ?...
Edited: Buddhists believe in reincarnation as they commonly understand the word. In their case, it doesn't much matter how we understand it.
From my point of view, it's a blatant fallacy to assume intelligence and consciousness are an exclusively human phenomenon. The fact that we humans are conscious and intelligent is good enough proof to me that consciousness and intelligence are an inherent potentiality of the universe. If it wouldn't be in the nature of the universe to be a breeding ground for intelligence, there would be no humans wondering about what happens when they die.
The potentiality of intelligence existed before life on earth even started and that to me is an unavoidable fact. You simply can't state otherwise. Or at least I don't think you can without making a serious logical mistake.
Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation as I commonly understand the word. This is what it says about Buddhism:
I've corrected your post to make it more accurate.
I've corrected your post to make it more accurate.
You put your finger on it, it is all a matter of faith, a matter of belief. You either believe it or you don't, no matter of proof is going to convince anybody one way or the other.
Where faith is concerned, scientific concepts such as objectivity, evidence, hypothesis testing etc. are irrelevant.
Again, you cannot prove a negative; there is no way to prove that the soul does not exist (any more than there is a way to prove that Santa Claus does not exist). If you claim that the soul exists, it is up to you to prove it.
Quoting SirJosephPorter
Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation as I commonly understand the word. This is what it says about Buddhism:
And anyway, what does ‘I commonly understand’ mean? Either I understand or I don’t, but to say that ‘I commonly understand’ is nonsense. It makes sense to talk about ‘commonly understood meaning’ of a word, that would mean that most people agree with that meaning. But to say ‘I commonly understand’? What does that mean?
What a very interesting discussion. Death brings out the best in us.
John, whom you all don't know, is sitting on a park bench.
That is all very well (and I agree with that part myself), but what does it have to do with reincarnation or afterlife?
Is that anecdotal evidence?
I think we can all agree on what we commonly call a park bench, at least.
And "John" of course is a guy who consorts with hookers.
Feeling young will make you appear young.
Nope. Feeling young will make you feel young but elastin can't be made from smiling.
Is the reverse true? For example, if babies think they're old, will they grow facial hair? With their butts stuck to the ceiling? Just curious...
Reverse to feeling young only makes you feel young? Or?
(It's the power of suggestion emanating from the avatar)So you can't disprove it and I can't prove it, so we're even. I don't think it was ever intended that we know our destiny after we're done with this incarnation. Proving that the likes of Sylvia Browne are frauds has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of an after life. Anyway S.J. I have several anecdotes that do prove it but you don't accept anecdotes, so as far as I'm concerned this discussion is finished.
In this case, 'I commonly understand' means: "I, Sir Joseph Porter, deem the true, the one, the only meaning of this word to be whatever I determine it to be, and I reserve the right to change it as I see fit. Furthermore, I stipulate that I am the one, the only, the true source for the beliefs of all world religions, despite what the learned sources of those religions may say."
We are not even. As I have mentioned before, burden of proof is not upon me, it is upon you to prove that soul exists.
Only one side has the burden of proof. Let us take my claim that there is a two storey house on the moon made of gingerbread and Swiss cheese. You cannot disprove that claim, I cannot prove it. Does that mean that we are even, that the statement is as likely to be true as it is likely to be false?
Nothing of the sort. Until I prove it to be true, the statement is regarded as being false. It is the same thing with existence of soul. Until you prove that it exists, the default position is that it does not exist.
That doesn't take rocket science to understand- I commonly understand his hesitation to visit relatives, but in this case his favourite aunt was going to be there whom he had looked forward to seeing for months......................savvy?