Coming Back- The Science of Reincarnation

Aviator said:
I have been reading this book, and I am impressed. It presents a whole new view of life, death, afterlife and prelife.
Apparently, you (soul) can exist in one of the following forms, depending on the level of purity. From least to greatest
  1. Soil
  2. Plants
  3. Animals
  4. Humans
  5. Demigods
And you can be promoted or demoted depending on your behavior.
Surprisingly, the concept of reincarnation seems to have been well understood before the biblical times. Even Jesus himuserofu seemed to acknowledge this.
Example: Jesus said that John the Baptist is a reincarnation of Elias the Prophet.
He also accepted that there's the possibility that the man born blind may have been born blind due to some sin he had committed earlier (suggesting a prelife). Same applies to Islam. Even us Greeks have this concept.

It makes an interesting read. Get it here.
Click to expand...
You reincarnated !
Can you vividly remember your past life ?

Is this reincarnation
20210627_090216.jpg
 
Last edited:
[
Burner said:
You can say "this is a bed", would it not follow that the "a" is the soul of the bed? You have not defined anything in your statement hence it is reduced to absurdity.
Click to expand...
No. The bed will have to define itself and say, "I am a bed" or "This is my leg", then we can say that it is self aware.
 
kijanamrefu said:
[
No. The bed will have to define itself and say, "I am a bed" or "This is my leg", then we can say that it is self aware.
Click to expand...
The issue at hand is the use of the articles not self awareness.
"My/me" is no different from "a/it". Its purely a matter of perspective and in no way can they point to whether that thing (person or bed) has a soul.
And In any case, you cannot with absolute certainty show that the bed isnt self-aware.
 
Burner said:
The issue at hand is the use of the articles not self awareness.
"My/me" is no different from "a/it". Its purely a matter of perspective and in no way can they point to whether that thing (person or bed) has a soul.
And In any case, you cannot with absolute certainty show that the bed isnt self-aware.
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from. Allow me to summarize.

I think the arguments on trying to define a soul in this thread are being diluted by an attachment to trying to make humans appear unique among living things. We are not.

A better definition would be whether or not an individual (plant, human, animal) has the ability to act on their reason for existence and self awareness. By this definition, all "living" things have a "soul/life" that can be measured by this ability. Therefore, a rock, as much as it vibrates, is not "alive".
 
Last edited:
kijanamrefu said:
I understand where you're coming from. Allow me to summarize.

I think the arguments on trying to define a soul in this thread are being diluted by an attachment to trying make humans unique among living things. We are not.

A better definition would be whether or not an individual (plant, human, animal) has the ability to act on their reason for existence and self awareness.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this part. However, this is part
kijanamrefu said:
By this definition, all "living" things have a "soul/life" that can be measured by this ability.
Click to expand...
Is where i disagree. The proponents for the existence of a soul in this thread are not merely arguing that we are special in terms in self-awareness, but there is an "extra" component that we have that is unique.
They have yet to give a coherent definition of this thing although they label it a soul. Ok fine. The next obstacle is demonstrating its existence. All of which have failed.

Saying living things have a soul while meaning life only muddies the waters. Because for those same proponents are not using the word soul to mean life. For them it is a seperate entity altogether.
It is why my first comment was to get their definition of the term soul.
 
Burner said:
Saying living things have a soul while meaning life only muddies the waters. Because for those same proponents are not using the word soul to mean life. For them it is a seperate entity altogether.
It is why my first comment was to get their definition of the term soul.
Click to expand...
I think soul is a construct by the architects of religion to explain how mortals will migrate to Shangri La otherwise they were going to have difficulties explaining how people would get to heaven or hell once the corpse was buried.
 
Mwalimu-G said:
I think soul is a construct by the architects of religion to explain how mortals will migrate to Shangri La otherwise they were going to have difficulties explaining how people would get to heaven or hell once the corpse was buried.
Click to expand...
Especially when you say there is a place you go after death but everyone can clearly see you body right there and its not going anywhere at all.
 
Burner said:
I agree with you on this part. However, this is part

Is where i disagree. The proponents for the existence of a soul in this thread are not merely arguing that we are special in terms in self-awareness, but there is an "extra" component that we have that is unique.
They have yet to give a coherent definition of this thing although they label it a soul. Ok fine. The next obstacle is demonstrating its existence. All of which have failed.

Saying living things have a soul while meaning life only muddies the waters. Because for those same proponents are not using the word soul to mean life. For them it is a seperate entity altogether.
It is why my first comment was to get their definition of the term soul.
Click to expand...
Understood. Maybe they should just change their definition of "soul" to "life" then we can close the thread :ROFLMAO:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top