There is evidence of children recalling previous lives. See this article. — Wayfarer
The main researcher was a Professor Ian Stevenson — Wayfarer
Values have everything to do with it. The idea your beliefs have nothing to do with your values is simply derisible.
Science does not prove the earth is not flat, evidence does. You do not need science to validate claims. How often in a conversation do you demand people validate a claim with science. Never?
People cannot prove the claims they make about the contents of their experience nor can science.
You have made such a simplistic and facile notion of evidence that only trivial claims could past muster.
It is clear that your notion of evidence is maximally bias and prejudice. — Andrew4Handel
Have you done your due diligence on this guy, though? I doubt it. — S
I don't trust your spin, — S
Janus
7.1k
↪Frank Apisa
No, something may well be impossible even thought we could never prove that. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if we cannot prove it is impossible, then it must be possible. — Janus
I got one of his books out of the library once, and read some of it.
One of the things he said in the article I linked was ‘the will not to believe is as strong as the will to believe.’ — Wayfarer
which would be....? — Wayfarer
It’s not spin. — Wayfarer
He was generally ignored and often maligned. Reincarnation is a cultural taboo in Western culture, as a matter of fact. It goes against the grain. The main point I’m making is simply that this body of work does exist, and it is, as Stevenson suggests, suggestive of the possibility. — Wayfarer
There is a wealth of scientific evidence that has been amassed to make the claim that Earth is not flat credible — S
Why do you need "scientific" evidence to prove the earth is not flat? If you travel around the globe on a boat you will find it is not flat. Why does evidence have to be classed as "Scientific"? — Andrew4Handel
Personal testimony is NOT certain evidence. That's why there's currently a lot of debate about how much eye witness testimony should count in courts. — NKBJ
I wasn't using certain in that sense of the word. I meant it in the sense of some but not all.
Personal testimony can be fallible but that does not make it all false, logically. We rely on successful inter human communication to get through life. — Andrew4Handel
Initially, you claimed you needed credible evidence and then used scientific evidence as a source of credible evidence and personal testimony as made up stuff. — Andrew4Handel
I wasn't using certain in that sense of the word. I meant it in the sense of some but not all.
Personal testimony can be fallible but that does not make it all false, logically. We rely on successful inter human communication to get through life. — Andrew4Handel
Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities — S
An example of incredible evidence would be some chump just pointing out that some people say some stuff about supposed extraordinary events which could easily be made up, and there being no way of knowing the claim to be true. — S
You initially said
Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities
— S
You started your "debate" being completely dismissive with no good reason. — Andrew4Handel
Like, if someone claims to have seen a murder happen. Sure, the police will investigate, but when not a single shred of corroborating evidence turns up, they'll stop and probably assume the witness was mistaken somehow. — NKBJ
You genuinely believe that I did that with no good reason? — S
What was the good reason? — Andrew4Handel
There are many different types of pre-life, after death, near death accounts etc I wouldn't lump them altogether. Near death experiences tend to be taken seriously but theorists tend to try and explain in terms of types of neural/biochemical activity. — Andrew4Handel
The problem is that you can't provide corroborating evidence for private mental events. — Andrew4Handel
Additionally, the claim that you had a vision of a past life, if true and not a delusion, simultaneously makes a claim about the way the world outside of your mind is and works, thus making it not purely a mental phenomenon — NKBJ
There's a different set of evidentiary expectations for ordinary events and extraordinary ones. — NKBJ
It does not follow that a claim about a mental state entails a claim about what we consider to be the external world — Andrew4Handel
What makes you claim something is an extraordinary event? Existence itself is extraordinary.
Maybe you mean common mundane events. — Andrew4Handel
And yet, it's just blatantly ridiculous to claim you can't tell the difference between claims of eating cornflakes and of eating dragon eggs. That's just being disingenuous on your part. Don't pretend things cause you want to make your argument stick. — NKBJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.