Doesn't every faith that depends on unending life on Earth already meet sufficient criteria to be considered patently false?
This being Buddhism and Hinduism primarily. Science dictates all life in the universe becomes unsustainable in the far future, so there is a point where all beings would attain nirvana independent of their beleifs in Buddhism and all things would stop being created in Hinduism.
Other urls found in this thread:
Bumpin for Wotan
All religions meet the criteria for having been proven false. Well, maybe not strictly deist views, but those have always been a tiny minority and even most self-professed "deists" are actually theists.
Science hasn't stopped people from believing in their religion before, why should it in this case?
I don't think its strictly on earth, and within those belief systems earth isn't the only plane of existence. You can be reborn in hell or heaven too .
Is think pantheist views are safe as well.
Not in Buddhism
Not all of them. Granted true Christianity has considering the kingdom of Earth can't last forever due to thermodynamics but I guess you could argue that God will take care of that when he needs to.
How many worlds do you think you can get reincarnated in? And if its just the one, do you not think there can't be a 'next one'?
Assuming that theory about how the universe will eventually start contracting, then eventually expand again and so on ad infinium is true then reincarnation would be scientifically vindicated.
Granted you would only be reincarnated as yourself, and yourself in reverse over and over again forever without ever achieving any new insights or understanding but it's still kind of like reincarnation.
What tradition of Buddhism are you specifying exactly?
>"Later, as I turned my attention to investigating my past lives, it was terrifying to think how many times I had been born and how many times I had died; how many times I was reborn in hell; and how many times in the heavens and the Brahma realms,only to fall back into hell again." - Ajahn Maha Bua
>Science dictates
Absolutely nothing. First and only absolute rule about science:
>you don't KNOW shit.
>you just have a good idea.
>HURR science doesn't make categorical statements therefore you can't know nuffin!
I'll have a double mocha with a bran muffin to go please.
You exist only once or an infinite number of times. Any other amount would be arbitrary.
Matter cannot be destroyed or created. They can only be reshaped.
Since there are no "ether" or supernatural elements to a human consciousness, we can deduce it to some form of matter. As such, its impossible for any consciousness to be born only once and never again, First, they don't come out of nothing. Second they aren't destroyed into nothing. Only reshaped into another.
Pic related
Scientists were sure about all of these and time showed new evidence which changed the picture because nothing is absolute in science, it's all based on evidence which is subject to change.
In short, we don't KNOW anything we just have a good idea.
t. retard
Laughing at the goofy frog faced fucker on the top
t. Teenager
Is it really that hard for you to admit you don't know something?
You are just one small being in and endless universe full of life which itself is only one dimension in a infinite multiverse.
why would you think a human every 10'000 years entering nirvana would change anything?
Double latte decaff with cinnamon sprinkles please.
In Buddhism there are multiple worlds, heavenly and hell realms where people end up being rebirthed in and the universe itself is cyclical.
The Earth is just one place where beings inhabit.
Also why would you make a post with such a hideous picture?
>I'll tell him to get me coffee
>that'll show him
The scientific method even accounts for a measure of uncertainty. Words and phrases like "low probability" and "unlikely" are encouraged in scientific circles. What exactly do you think I'm getting wrong here?
Americano with almond milk and a waffle to go please.
Trying to disprove religion(something based on belief) via science(something that tries to understand observable nature).Literally fedora tier.
Because that isn't how reincarnation works
t. liberal undergrad
scientists do not describe anything but the numerical outputs of some tools that they bought from somebody else. Scientists do not rely on their 5 senses, they are not empiricists. Scientists claim that their imagination is a way to ''truth'' or ''objectivity'' or some other big words that somehow describe a' ''reality'' wherein humans are not, and of course to sort all their fantasies, since they think that senses are shit and corruptible, they build the fantasy of ''validity'' of a fantasy with respect to something that ''is not human''.
at this point, the rationalists can either go even more full retard by clinging to a sky daddy, or can go full retard like ''nature'' but of course there is no ''nature''. There is what is experiences thru the 5 senses and what is experience through the imagination [= opinions, ideas, through, concepts, inferences, whatever]. So some guy though he was genius because he slapped back his fantasies against ''the 5 senses'' as the validity of inferences, to check whether his ''inferences'' were valid.
but it turns out that what is experienced through the senses is just what is experiences through the senses, no matter how hard people cling to their fantasy of a validity of a ralitionalism-claiming-to-be-empirisist. Well the only good thing from this religion by the secular humanist is that it has been providing, for the last 300 years, a salary for lots of people in the liberal revival of the academia
so the trick of those people is to develop ''models'' (modelling what? nobody knows) and then to make the model compete and say ''this model is more valid than this model''.
Of course a model cannot model the ''reality'' since to model the reality you must know the ''model of the reality'', plus the ''reality'' plus the comparison between the ''model of the reality'' with the ''reality''.
But if you know the ''reality'' you do not care about modelling it in the first place.
Then they develop statistics, because those people claim that statics somehow gives you ''truth'' and the other big words that they love. Of course they have no proof of this, for people who love to claim they prove things it is disappointing from them.... THey claim that you cannot know knowledge with ''just one event''.
They claim that their fantasy of the ''repeatability of the conditions leading to an effect'' is the way to check ''a model against the reality'' (which is again retarded).
So how do you get truth from stats according to these people. You run your little model, you run an ''repeatable experiment'' several times (these people love to claim that the condition producing an event are stable across time) and you collect ''data'' which is ''the reality'' (these people love to claim that reality is just a bunch of numbers,like a photon, and then those numbers are axiomatized, by those people, as some sets).
After this you read a book, where the ''convention'' for determining ''the truth'' is to have a statistical significance. So for instance people in biology claim that ''the statistical significance'' for some ''repeatable experiment'' is ''3 sigma'' or some ''p value of whatever number they choose at this date of the conference''.
then they publish their articles, they are happy about what they are doing, they get their salary and a few awards if enough big names already approved have faith in their article and they die. This is their rewards.
t.buttblasted science cultist
it is flat after all
>he thinks absolute certainty is needed for knowledge
This is how brainlets think
it will not contract, it will keep going for ever until every atom is separated.
>our own observable universe is the entirety of all things that either do exist or will exist
This is what atheists literally believe.
Reincarnation isn't limited to either this planet or this physical plane.
>Doesn't every faith that depends on unending life on Earth already meet sufficient criteria to be considered patently false?
Yeah religious people always immediately drop their beliefs once they are shown to be ridiculous...
>Not in Buddhism
>what is mt. meru
>what are the hot hells
>cold hells
>asura realm
>deva realm
>avicii hell
>mfw illiterate niggas aint skim the Jewel Ornament of Liberation for 20 damn minutes
Buddhism is probably the most naturalistic of any faith. All the business about samsara is deeply couched in naturalistic observations, all of which are not only concordant but intellectually complimentary to scientific, empirical, thermodynamic principles. It's baby-tier logic to compare waxing and waning sensual desires with the seasons, the tides, the rumbling of the earth itself, and just like Stoic and Gnostic philosophy jettisons the all-eating desires for higher philosophical principles. Whether you make chinky charms for hungry ghosts and shit is one thing but to that point it's the furthest thing from "patently false".
I didn't know what that was called.. But that's what I am tbqh
>magic is real because my fee fees say so
This is what theistcucks literally believe.
bump
You don't have to believe in magic to not believe our observable universe is the entirety of all reality that either currently exists or will ever exist. You just have to apply the Copernican principle, which the standard model of cosmology (Lambda-CDM model) already does.
You DO have to believe in magic to think reincarnation is real. There's no way around this.
I'm not arguing reincarnation is real. I'm arguing this thread's premise is a bad argument against reincarnation because it assumes there's nothing in existence except our own observable universe.
The difference between the laws of physics and magic is subjective
Technically a materialist could believe in reincarnation because "you" created 1000 years from now out of sheer chance in the brain structures of a 15 billion human population is, without mysticism, the exact same as the you on Veeky Forums now that died prior. The conscious minds would be identical.
Somebody had to learn statistics at university I assume?
The funny part is, once you really understand statistics, it becomes obvious that many researchers really don't or they fake the data to make their hypothesis fit.
Also the question for reincarnation is related to the hard problem of consciousness. What is it? How does it work? Is it seperate from the body?
Can we please at least admit that we have no idea about what is going on with it?
Here is a nice TED talk about it: the topic was so touchy for the TED science public that is was taken down.
youtube.com
No, a copy of you is a copy, it's not you.
You're only copying the physical configuration at a different location. So it might well be your consciousness.
No, if I make a perfect copy of you and then kill you, then you don't survive.
bupmq
The duration of the material universe is limited. It is manifested in cycles of kalpas. A kalpa is a day of Brahmā, and one day of Brahmā consists of a thousand cycles of four yugas or ages: Satya, Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali. During the daytime of Brahma the jivas (individual souls) exhibit their activities, and at the coming of Brahma's night they are annihilated. In the day they receive various bodies for material activities, and at night these bodies perish. The jivas remain compact in the body of Visnu and again and again are manifest at the arrival of Brahma's day. When Brahma's life is finally finished, they are all annihilated and remain unmanifest for millions and millions of years. Finally, when Brahma is born again in another millennium, they are again manifest. In this way the jivas are captivated by the material world. However, those intelligent beings who take to Krsna consciousness and chant Hare Krsna, Hare Rama in devotional service transfer themselves, even in this life, to the spiritual planet of Krsna and become eternally blissful there, not being subject to such rebirths.
But the copy isn't using the same matter as you.
If the universe expands and contracts to a singularity then its possible the next big bang is the same as before and you end up with the same configuration as before.
Which means you live the same life over and over again with no free will.
buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho buddho
devas don't live on earth
The big crunch hypothesis was proven false a few years back. The rate that the universe is expanding is increasing.
>Granted you would only be reincarnated as yourself, and yourself in reverse over and over again forever without ever achieving any new insights or understanding but it's still kind of like reincarnation.
There's no real reason to believe the "next" universe would be identical with this one even if the big crunch theory WAS true.
That's an unscientific response that relies on metaphysics to support itself.
>be demonized
>sent to shrink
>be given treatment for 10 years
>psychiatrist agrees that she was wrong, agrees finally that I have a demon and greenlights me on seeking help elsewhere after testing me for these 10 years
Why do atheist niggers have such a problem accepting the views of science?
>No, if I make a perfect copy of you and then kill you, then you don't survive.
You started thinking, but you didn't keep going. "You" don't survive in a perfect copy because there was never any real continuity having "you" thing to begin with. "You" don't teleport into the perfect copy after it's created, but "you" from two seconds ago also doesn't teleport into "you" from one second ago in your body to begin with. The closest thing to continuity that we have is memories. A perfect copy has as much / as little continuity with the source body as we do with our past selves.
The introduction of the possibility of there being two bodies at the same time that this perfect copy hypothetical introduces screws with your intuition because in the natural circumstances we're familiar with there's never more than one of a person existing in the same moment, but multiplicity doesn't make the perfect copy any less legitimate. Having two of a person at the same time would allow for those two versions of a person to start having their own distinct sets of memories from *each other*, but both would have the same amount of validity as successors to the source person from the moment directly preceding the creation of the perfect copy.
I've seen people try to argue that because the non-copy person existing in a moment following the copy's creation wouldn't have access to the new memories of the perfect copy that this somehow means the perfect copy isn't as valid of a successor to the person in the moment before the copying as the non-copy person in a moment following the copying is, but the problem there is the arguer wold be conflating the pre-copy moment person with the post-copy moment person. The copy is a successor to the pre-copy moment person, not the post-copy moment person. The pre-copy moment person neither has access to the memories of the copy or the memories of the post-copy moment person, which makes both equally valid (or equally invalid) as successors.